On 9/22/2010 9:56 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
This is the exception that proves the rule. I still think that doing it
under an AMD64 or Intel x86_64 is probably futile under the current
state-of -the-art.
Nested virtualization is *not* the point or objective of the exercise -
enabling
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
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
On 9/23/2010 9:51 AM, 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
On 9/21/2010 6:51 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
To satisfy my curiosity I have been trying (without success) to get
Debian installed and running in Windoof 7 Virtual PC.
What I have discovered is that:-
1. If you run Windoof 7 in VirtualBox (under Debian) it runs fine -
given an inordinate amount
On 9/21/2010 6:51 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
Someone with more knowledge of the history of Virtual PC may be able to
explain those similarities.
Microsoft did not create VPC, they bought it from Connectix. It's
provenance probably includes a lot of old code from various places. I
used to
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
On 9/22/2010 3:14 PM, Stephen Powell wrote:
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
On 23/09/10 05:29, Mark Allums wrote:
On 9/21/2010 6:51 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
To satisfy my curiosity I have been trying (without success) to get
Debian installed and running in Windoof 7 Virtual PC.
What I have discovered is that:-
1. If you run Windoof 7 in VirtualBox (under Debian)
On 23/09/10 05:34, Mark Allums wrote:
On 9/21/2010 6:51 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
Someone with more knowledge of the history of Virtual PC may be able to
explain those similarities.
Microsoft did not create VPC, they bought it from Connectix. It's
provenance probably includes a lot of
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
On 23/09/10 07:38, Mark Allums wrote:
On 9/22/2010 3:14 PM, Stephen Powell wrote:
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
Regarding post ps - illegal instruction by Jerry Stuckle
To satisfy my curiosity I have been trying (without success) to get
Debian installed and running in Windoof 7 Virtual PC.
What I have discovered is that:-
1. If you run Windoof 7 in VirtualBox (under Debian) it runs fine -
given an
Scott Ferguson writes:
3. It would require reverse-engineering - which is bad
No it isn't. I noted that Microsoft claims that it is illegal, but that
is not the same thing at all.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On 21/09/10 22:59, John Hasler wrote:
Scott Ferguson writes:
3. It would require reverse-engineering - which is bad
No it isn't. I noted that Microsoft claims that it is illegal, but that
is not the same thing at all.
:-D
Agreed John, hence my comment a little further down about either I
On Tuesday 21 September 2010 15:34:41 Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 21/09/10 22:59, John Hasler wrote:
Scott Ferguson writes:
3. It would require reverse-engineering - which is bad
No it isn't. I noted that Microsoft claims that it is illegal, but that
is not the same thing at all.
Bad is
16 matches
Mail list logo
