Parabola recently found a serious freedom problem with VirtualBox in which a
non-free compiler is needed: https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/375#note-1
It appears that upstream is not interested in fixing this:
https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/12011
Parabola has removed VirtualBox from their
Actually, further clarification shows this is only for version 4.2. Since
Trisquel has an older version (4.1) it can be kept for now...
Well, it doesn't work anyway. Thus it would be better to remove it.
It does work, but not out of the box; try this:
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/installing-virtualbox
and you may have to repeat the same steps after updates sometimes.
> Well, it doesn't work anyway. Thus it would be better to remove it.
--
Heather
Hmm.. So a piece of fully free software is removed because a small piece of
that free software needs a fully open-source, OSI approved compiler to build
properly...
Right.. Right. Yeah, right, that makes sense.
Perhaps we should add a tutorial on the wiki on how to use qemu
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=376431
> Debian-legal may provide you with a clause-by-clause analysis, but
> let me point out just one particular gem:
>
> the moment you use openwatcom to compile any work-related piece of
> software (thus not "Personal Use"), you need to make th
Ehm... is this trolling? The FSF didn't approve of the license in question.
Only the OSI did. The FSF's reason for rejecting it is a damn sound one, too.
Right.. Yes, I see. It's got a silly, completely unenforcable clause in
there. Heh. Suppose my immediate vaguely childish reaction is akin to who
gives a shit.. The code is still out there. You can grab it, stare at it and
modify it.
Then again, the FSF always sees things entirely in black
dudeski said:
"Yes, I see. It's got a silly, completely unenforcable clause in there. Heh.
Suppose my immediate vaguely childish reaction is akin to who gives a shit..
The code is still out there. You can grab it, stare at it and modify it."
YOU are certainly free to distribute code with a
On 30/08/13 05:40, erikthorsen wrote:
> Right.. Yes, I see. It's got a silly, completely unenforcable clause
> in there. Heh. Suppose my immediate vaguely childish reaction is akin
> to who gives a shit.. The code is still out there. You can grab it,
> stare at it and modify it.
>
> Then again, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I agree with Trisquel's view that unless/until this is resolved upstream,
Virtualbox should be removed from the repositories. As dudeski said, it is
easy enough for users to grab the deb file straight from Oracle if they so
desire.
In the me
I tried QEMU once, and it seemed like it was decent, though I didn't figure
out how to actually use it.
I think that's a good idea. I tried out qemu once, but I was never able to
figure out how to make it work. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
"Ehm... is this trolling?"
Yes, dudeski seems to be critical of most everything [0] in their comments.
[0] https://trisquel.info/en/users/dudeski/track
People use VB from the Ubuntu and Trisquel repos? They are usually old
versions and Oracle offers official repositories for most distros on
http://www.virtualbox.org
Ok. It's bad, but is possible to have the old version (4.1) with the future
versions of Trisquel?
I only tried qemu with Debian GNU/Hurd.
So only the new version is dependent on a non-free compiler and they don't
want to fix that? It seems like a major issue and I'd think most
distributions would want to exclude it. Isn't this an issue for Debian as
well? Or is it just going to end up in the non-free repository?
@jxself: You should be more accurate. The VBox team is not uninterested in
fixing this.
The reply from their VBox ticket:
...
We would be glad to fix this, but we lack the resources to do so as our BIOS
code has simply outgrown what bcc (which we were using before and which was
always very
"It does work, but not out of the box; try this:
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/installing-virtualbox
and you may have to repeat the same steps after updates sometimes."
These steps don't work for me unfortunately.
"I think that's a good idea. I tried out qemu once, but I was never able to
fi
Let's start a fund raiser for poor little Oracle so they'll get enough
resources!
/sarcasm
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:44 AM, you wrote:
> You are not. I'm having the same problem. Qemu seems to be a bit complicated
> to use, which is why I'd prefer to use VirtualBox if possible.
Have you checked one of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel-based_Virtual_Machine#Graphical_manageme
Firstly, Oracle (while admittedly being a big douchy at times) has nothing to
do with OpenWatcom, other than using it as a compiler for the VirtualBox
BIOS, so this is already nonsense.
But let's pretend for a moment the OpenWatcom project wanted to try enforcing
this.. How exactly would th
Sarcasm does not help here. Also Oracle has a proven record to do NOTHING for
open-source. Also see how the (re)sell rebranded RHEL for their own purposes.
Note that the VirtualBox guys were always quite open to the free software
community but Innotek was bought by Oracle...hence end of game.
On 30/08/13 20:08, erikthorsen wrote:
> Firstly, Oracle (while admittedly being a big douchy at times) has
> nothing to do with OpenWatcom, other than using it as a compiler for
> the VirtualBox BIOS, so this is already nonsense.
If VirtualBox won't fully compile without non-free (or controversi
I can not judge the state of the Hurd Kernel but AFAIK it is quite limited
compared to a vanilla Linux kernel. My experiences under GNU Linux are quite
good. We run a virtualisation cluster with three big servers under Debian
with KVM as hypervisor with good results.
Here is quite some comprehensive overview:
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Management_Tools
Although there are a lot of large-scale frontend included.
Personally I found virt-manager quite nice:
http://virt-manager.org/
At least if you can live with NAT-mode for the guests. Generating a bridge
Probably you don't use the default kernel (Linux-libre 3.2) from Trisquel. If
you use the kernel-belenos (3.5) or from PPA (3.4 or 3.10) it doesn't works.
Here's short guide on how to use QEMU.
sudo aptitude install qemu
qemu-img create -f qcow2 hdd.qcow2 10G
qemu-system-x86_64 -m 512M -cdrom trisquel_6.0_amd64.iso hdd.qcow2
There are three steps above.
First we install QEMU by the package called qemu.
Second we create an disk image file, wh
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 21:16:23 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
>That's the basics. You should keep in mind that some CPUs have special
>vitalization functions, that are used for QEMU. If you don't have them, then
>QEMU will complain the it could not access KVM kernel module. It will still
>run, but
I want to share something with you:
It exists a graphical frontend for qemu if you are in a hurry:
http://aqemu.sourceforge.net/
If you disagree with fsf's criteria, why bother using an fsf qualified
distro? Ubuntu is out there with VirtualBox. Unless your point is just to
troll.
Thank you. I tried Qemu about a year ago and didn't have much luck with it but
now I'm inspired to give it another shot.
I believe I read back then that we can convert our existing .vdi files to
.qcow2. Does anyone know if this is correct?
> Here's short guide on how to use QEMU.
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
