On Tuesday 30 Dec 2014 22:01:00 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For years now I have been running VirtualBox for testing purposes. > > I used to run vbox, but ran into some issues along the way and > switched to KVM, with virt-manager as a front-end. It is a bit more > complicated to get bridged networking set up, but it doesn't require > any 3rd-party kernel modules to run. You might want to look into it. > It isn't as user-friendly as VirtualBox, but all the features are FOSS > (I forget if all the VirtualBox features are open-source - haven't > used it in a while). You can run VMs via the front-end, or as > daemons/etc. > > This wouldn't really fit your needs, but in general I'd advise anybody > doing virtualization of linux guests to consider running containers > instead. They are fairly mainstream technology now - the isolation > isn't as good as virtualization from a security standpoint, and I have > no idea if you can use one with a graphical console, but otherwise > they give you almost all the benefits of running a linux guest with > much better performance and far less overhead (no double-caching, > etc). I've been moving to containers for more of my daemons as it > generally reduces the hassle of updates (more updates to do, but when > you do an update only one service can break at a time). Containers > can even get their own network interfaces/IPs/etc - just like a VM.
Thank you All, it seems that VM is probably still the simplest solution for my needs. I thought of looking into containers, but a few of the VMs are MSWindows. Also thank you Alec for pointing out selenium. I expect it would be useful for automating the testing of more complex websites and web apps. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
