On Friday 11 September 2009 04:14:58 am Nuzhna Pomoshch wrote: > --- On Fri, 9/11/09, Maciek Kaliszewski <maciek.kaliszew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Simply stated, I have NO idea what you really want. In > > other words, what specific situation would make you happy? > > I thought I made that quite clear, but for your benefit, I > will state it again. Either a binary that will run on a > generic distribution compiled with gcc 4 or USB support in > the open source edition.
Please try again. Identify your Host System. Identify your Guest System. Identify the proposed Application. Identify the problems you are seeing, and what would constitute success. > > > In my view (which may well be defective at this point) > > VirtualBox and USB are ENTIRELY unrelated. Let me > > explain that remark. > > Have you ever read any of the documentation (like this page)? > > http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions > > > Now install, as a second Guest System, something such as > > Windows XP Pro. Did WinXPPro support USB? Most of the > > time, yes. Does it here in VirtualBox? Same answer. > > Not in the open source edition. You just might be correct about your completely unspecified environment -- but you are WRONG to generalize thusly. I have had it working in Kubuntu Jaunty, VBox 2.1.4_OSE (that DOES mean "Open Source Edition", or so I suspect.), and Windows XP Pro. > > > Concerning your "compiled binaries", I have no business > > making any comment beyond this. You make it sound as if > > you are running something that nobody else is running -- > > and asking us if YOUR stuff will work. > > That is completely erroneous. I am running a very common > combination of the system toolchain (neither archaic nor > cutting edge). The "generic" virtualbox binary requires > gcc 3, which, while it still "works" (so does DOS 6.22), > IS archaic. > > > That sounds one step short of silly to me; after all, > > how would anyone be able to know from experience if a > > totally customized system will work ANYwhere! > > There is a broad (but not perfect) level of compatibility > across versions of the system toolchain. These are well- > known. So are incompatibilities. Applications compiled > with gcc 3 will not work on a system with only gcc 4 > libraries (and vice versa). > > > Remember that Virtualbox is available -- even in the > > latest (3.0.6) version -- for absolutely NO money at > > all. If you can customize a "distro" that highly, you > > should be able to make most of it work in VirtualBox. > > Try it out. If you CAN'T make it work, simply > > uninstall it and go back to whatever works for you. > > I can't make the generic version to work on the machines > I need to have it work on. Then just skip it. > > > And it is opensource :-) , if some feature is closed > > nothing can stop you from implementing it and release on > > opensource basis . VirtualBox OSE is AFAIR GPL'ed > > Yes indeed, but adding USB support to the open source > edition (aside from reinventing the wheel) would not be an > efficient use of my time. Then just WHAT would make it worth the time of someone else? > > > From my part I want express my gratitude to Sun for > > Openoffice ,Vbox , etc.:-) > > I am grateful, too, but I would be a lot more grateful if > they would offer a gcc 4 compiled version of each release. :) Frank has mentioned several versions for a variety of distros. You don't want one more version -- you want to double the versions. If it isn't worth your time to help, then I hope you will find something that IS worth your time. > > > I hope this attitude will not change after takeover by > > Oracle :-) > > Oracle has worked with open source for a long time, and they > certainly have no motivation to change the status quo. > > Nuzhna _______________________________________________ vbox-users mailing list vbox-users@virtualbox.org http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users
