On 24/09/10 00:51, Stephen Powell wrote: > 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. >
Ah! Thank you for the clarification. I shall now re-read the post in the morning with less cynical eyes. (shoot me if you will - but I call Blue Pill b.s. - source code available if you wish to test the $300+K hype). In retrospect I should have given more thought to my subject line! Makes it sound like a request for help - very obscure of me :-( It's a moot point now - given that the purpose of running the nested virtualization was simply to (partially) confirm VPC *is* almost identical to VirtualBox - most definitely not some novel way to find breakpoints for SoftIce. Not that I'd jeopardise my clearance (like Sklyarov) just to FLIRT with Embrace, Extend, etc. No argument with IBM's hypervisors and their capabilities - I first had access to one of the (poorly named) RS range 20+ years ago - can't say I loved it, but I did enjoy borrowing cards to drop into my (IBM) PS/2 :-) Good night, and apologies for the confusion -- 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/4c9b74db.9080...@gmail.com
