"Anyone who has installed Linux on Virtual PC/Virtual Server knows that while yes, Linux is supported on these platforms, and yes, it does run well after getting it setup - installation can be a downright pain. It is for this reason that I take great pride in the fact that installing Linux on the Hyper-V beta release is a breeze."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 0
Member since:
2006-08-18
Fans: 2
Well its about time.
Fedora can also be the host via KVM.
http://www.michaeldolan.com/1034
Fedora and RHEL have a nice a virtual machine manager, which is like a central monitoring and control hub for all guests OSes, running in the Xen or other hypervisors.
Edited 2008-01-02 20:35
Member since:
2005-11-14
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-23
Fans: 1
Member since:2006-08-01
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-11-30
Fans: 1
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 33
I imagine that it has been discussed to death on their mailing lists. But I have not been party to it. So please forgive me for observing that the change from "Fedora Core" to "Fedora" is a bad one. Used to be, if you had a problem during an install, you could google with some key words plus fc6, fc5, fc4, or whatever, and find an answer. Now, if you have a problem installing Fedora 7 or 8, you can Google for F7 or F8 and find out all the wonderful things that those function keys can do for you in various Windows applications that you don't use or care about. fc6 was distinctive. F8 is not.
That should put an end to new users being ridiculed on the Fedora mailing lists for not having Googled before asking their questions. It won't, of course. But it should.
Edited 2008-01-02 23:28
Member since:2008-01-02
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 33
Member since:2005-11-14
Fans: 0
Don't you really mean the Red Hat, Inc., Fedora 8 distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system?
Yes, that one.
BTW, aren't you the guy of the "Microsoft-Windows-Vista-Home-Premium" post at this URL?
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18900&comment_id=28...
Well, of course everybody seems to be very picky about its own OS name, so, don't bother other people for doing the same things you do.
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
Member since:
2006-08-18
Fans: 2
This is nonsense bickering folks.
Who cares if someone calls it Fedora Core? The blogger works at Microsoft. Do we really expect him to be aware of all thing Linux, especially something as trivial as a name change?
Likewise, are we really going to nag at those who refer to openSUSE as SuSE or SUSE?
Member since:2005-11-14
Fans: 0
Who cares if someone calls it Fedora Core?
Beside the facts that a name is a name and shouldn't be changed at your own pleasure, the "Core" part has an exact meaning here (already explained some posts above).
So, calling it Fedora Core is wrong.
It's just like calling "Windows Vista" "Windows 3.11"! At the end, who cares if it is 3.11 or Vista? It is always windows!
;-)
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
Member since:
2005-07-22
Fans: 0
Previous Versions of Fedora (6 & 7 especially) installed OOTB into VMWare Server on Windows or Linux Hosts and now with VMWare Fusion, MAC Hosts are just as easy.
Also you can move the VM files from one host to another. This is a big plus to me.
Sure, VMWare tools requites a bit of fiddling and xorg.conf needs a little tweak but the original article didn't go into that level of detail in the post install configuration.
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
I must agree. What's new here? That Linux can be installed in a virtualized environment? No shit sherlock, that's what virtualization is all about.
This whole article can be shortened to "Fedora can be installed in Hyper-V without any problems at all" without losing any important information.
I guess the real news is that someone at Microsoft wrote an article about Linux that isn't full of FUD?
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
Member since:2006-09-01
Fans: 3
Linux was never crippled. The problem was in the application code, or lack of code in this case.
The VirtualPC guys didn't implement 24-bit resolutions as it was more difficult to implement then 16 and 32-bit modes. Most Linux GUIs default to 24-bit; consequently X11 dies horribly when it is loaded.
http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/05/09/415814.aspx
It was possible to get Linux running, it just required editing xorg.conf.
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 33
Well that certainly throws a different light on it. So for servers, it was never the pain to install that the article claims? And for desktop use it was just a quick edit of xorg.conf?
I thought that 24 bit and 32 bit were really the same thing? And that both were really 24 bit with some alpha channels or something. Could some kind soul clarify?
Member since:2007-07-31
Fans: 0
You know its funny, considering the context of the previous off topic comments.. I've had this undeniable childish urge to pull you up on your usage of MAC as if it is an abbreviation... or are you virtualizing network cards?
But hey, I'm bigger than that -- and I'm only teasing (kinda) 
Member since:
2007-02-08
Fans: 0
What a waste of time this thread was to read. More than half the posts were about the friggin name.
But in the intrest of not wasting time. The things to think about are, how does it perform relative to other products on the market? ESX, Xen, etc. I am talking about Hypervisors, not paravirtualiztion, since MS claims it is a hyperv is a hypervisor. Or at least insinuating it in the name.