On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:49:42 -0400 (EDT), Scott Ferguson wrote: > 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...
No. This was a reply to http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2010/09/msg01676.html which was posted by Mark Allums. No-one named Joanna has posted to this thread. The name Joanna was referenced only in a footnote in Mark's post. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- 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/1676738525.216701.1285253493610.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com