On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Todd And Margo Chester
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>>
>> Can't say it is perfect, but "riddled with bugs" seems a bit exaggerated.
>>  My overall experiences with VB have been very positive.
>>
>> Phil
>>
> Not "exaggerated".  Years of pain and experience.
>
> Wait until you get your job threatened over it.  Fortunately, as a
> consultant, they are not my only customer.  If loose them, I will
> have to hustle and find someone else.  Still sucks though, especially
> when you have worked for them for over ten years and you
> have become friends with many of them.
>
> -T
>
> A collection of some of my "recent" bug reports.
>
> http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7628
> http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7643
> http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7607
> http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7948
> http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7957
> http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7772
>
> And the one I almost got and still may get fired over:
> http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/8478

These all seem to be version 3.x of VirtualBox, and with Windows guest
operating systems. From your comments in them, it looks like you've
been using Windows Terminal Servers.

Do you have a support contract with Oracle? If not, for production
servers, I'm afraid you really need one. Scientific Linux, and the
various Red Hat based distributions, have been rock stable under
VirtualBox for me for the last year. I'm quite pleased with it. The
only reason I'd use VMWare is for LabManager or to virtualize SCO
OpenServer (which I've had to do).

I still avoid KVM where feasible, even under Red Hat or Scientific
Linux 6.0. I still find the necessary "bridge" network manual
configuraiton to be nutty for a production server, and the libvirt
tools to be a poorly planned nad implemented attempt to merge distinct
and incompatible virtualizaiton tools into a single interface. Give me
the clean VirtualBox interface any day.