On 3/8/07, Cocoy Dayao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ..
when one thinks about it... virtualization actually makes greater sense after spending a lot of money on mac hardware and os x.
Not correct. Intel Mac hardware does not cost any more than ordinary Intel hardware. Try comparing the price of a Macbook with a Core Duo, with a Toshiba with a Core Duo. Surprise surprise, the Macbook is often CHEAPER.
dual-booting just doesn't cut it in this day and age anymore. you can test a product on your virtualized linux on your laptop without having to run it by a real server. US$80 (cost of parallels, sorry i don't know the cost of vmware) versus the cost of a real server+electrical consumption+physical real-estate versus time spent reading how-tos, backing up data and implementing them= a lot of savings.
That doesn't work for me. Virtualized OS'es often have many limitations (e.g. the maximum SHM size you can use often is capped at unknown and unreasonably small values). Try running Oracle 10g under VMWare under Windows, and prepare for mayhem. Of course, this is due to Windows having a shitty SHM implementation, but my premise stands: dual-booting is often still necessary. I haven't tried running Oracle 10g or TimesTen under Xen or OpenVZ, because frankly I don't have the time to see if it works and these aren't supported configurations. For these (which are highly necessary it being my job...) dual-booting is still the win. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
