[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Virtual Box

Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 05:14:55PM -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:32:23 -0700
Aldo Foot wrote:

I think VirtualBox may be preferred because it appears more
manageable in the surface.
A friend at work who uses it says it is vastly easier to
do things like pass USB devices through to the virtual hardware
with VirtualBox than with anything else he has tried,
so he can do things like use Windows scanner software for
scanners not supported by anything in linux.

I agree, USB devices are easier to pass through to VirtualBox --
however, I'm testing Rawhide on my personal machine starting this
weekend, which is very close to F11 Beta right now.  I'll try to let
the list know what improvements I see in USB device connections to the

Got a link to the problems people had? I only tried a direct connection to USB once, as they say "for educational purposes only," but it seemed to work just fine. So fine, in fact, that I am tempted to access some hardware using an XP in VM rather than fighting ndiswrapper.

However, I would expect KVM to be the most efficient VM, just because of direct kernel support. Note, I haven't benchmarked that in any way.

Bill Davidsen <davidsen tmr com>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]