On 23/09/10 06:14, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:29:59 -0400 (EDT), Mark Allums wrote: >> >> I am probably way late on this one, but that maneuver is a nonstarter. >> Nested Virtualization is very difficult and kind of pointless. A few >> security researchers[0] have done it, mostly as a stunt to prove a >> technical point, but it is very unstable. You *can* run DOSbox in a VM, >> but generally the question is, why would you? > > That may be true for some virtualization software, but not for all. > My "day job" is as a system programmer for IBM mainframe systems, > and among my duties is responsibility for a z/VM system. In z/VM, > nested virtualization is not difficult, pointless, or unstable. I routinely > install a new release of z/VM in a virtual machine running under > the production release of z/VM, for example. There's even instructions > in IBM's installation manuals for how to do this. > > z/VM is probably the most robust virtualization platform available > anywhere, having been developed, tweaked, and honed by IBM since 1967. > But it has two distict disadvantages: (1) it is proprietary, for-charge > software and (2) it only runs on IBM mainframes. > I suspect you're quoting Joanna and crediting Mark there...
Agreed, and virtualbox under xen is common. A quick browse through fnord Ubuntu forums shows how trivial nested desktop virtualization is. Cheers -- *In case you never receive this mail, please notify me immediately* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c9ac046.1000...@gmail.com