Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:32:30 -0800 |
Content-Type: | multipart/mixed |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 01/24/2016 06:06 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 01/23/2016 01:30 PM, Yasha Karant wrote:
>> Perhaps someone else has experienced what I related below and can
>> comment -- SL 7x.
>>
>> 1. ... For 802.3, I prefer to use a manual configuration, not
>> NetworkManager.
>
> For a dynamic connection even with a wired Ethernet you should use the
> supported NetworkManager stack, your personal preferences aside. NM
> works and doesn't require munging for a simple DHCP wired connection.
>
>>
>> 2. ...Note that I must use MS Win to work with these devices as the
>> application software for the device in question is *NOT* available
>> for linux, the device is proprietary (no source code available), and
>> CrossOver/Wine does not support USB -- forcing the use of a VM
>> running a MS Win gues
>
> Neither VMware nor VirtualBox ship as part of SL. KVM does, and USB
> passthrough works very well with Windows 7 running in a KVM virtual
> machine on my laptop. It just works, and it's already part of SL; why
> not use it? Performance is very good in my experience, and I'm
> running a few pieces of software in Win 7 for the same reasons as
> you. You're also far more likely to get useful help using KVM, either
> from the list or from other sources, such as the Red Hat or Fedora
> documentation.
From the KVM site (http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Management_Tools) that
has a RedHat logo, there is a list of management interfaces, including
VMM (Virtual Machine Manager -- https://virt-manager.org/screenshots/ )
that also appears to be a Red Hat entity. Anyone using VMM? VMM
appears to allow a true host OS (supervisor, not hypervisor) with the VM
("hypervisor") running under the OS (as with VMWare workstation/player
or VirtualBox), thus booting an OS, not a hypervisor that actually
provisions for guest supervisors. Is this correct?
Yasha Karant
|
|
|