On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Todd And Margo Chester <toddandma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote: >> >> Can't say it is perfect, but "riddled with bugs" seems a bit exaggerated. >> My overall experiences with VB have been very positive. >> >> Phil >> > Not "exaggerated". Years of pain and experience. > > Wait until you get your job threatened over it. Fortunately, as a > consultant, they are not my only customer. If loose them, I will > have to hustle and find someone else. Still sucks though, especially > when you have worked for them for over ten years and you > have become friends with many of them. > > -T > > A collection of some of my "recent" bug reports. > > http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7628 > http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7643 > http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7607 > http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7948 > http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7957 > http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7772 > > And the one I almost got and still may get fired over: > http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/8478
These all seem to be version 3.x of VirtualBox, and with Windows guest operating systems. From your comments in them, it looks like you've been using Windows Terminal Servers. Do you have a support contract with Oracle? If not, for production servers, I'm afraid you really need one. Scientific Linux, and the various Red Hat based distributions, have been rock stable under VirtualBox for me for the last year. I'm quite pleased with it. The only reason I'd use VMWare is for LabManager or to virtualize SCO OpenServer (which I've had to do). I still avoid KVM where feasible, even under Red Hat or Scientific Linux 6.0. I still find the necessary "bridge" network manual configuraiton to be nutty for a production server, and the libvirt tools to be a poorly planned nad implemented attempt to merge distinct and incompatible virtualizaiton tools into a single interface. Give me the clean VirtualBox interface any day.
