Talk:VirtualBox/Archives/2012/October

Some Inaccuracies

"VirtualBox has a rather unique approach to fix this conflict: It tricks the guest operating system to actually execute its ring-0 code in ring 1, which is normally unused on the Intel architecture."

Not exactly unique; that's how pretty much all x86 virtualisation solutions work. The caching of recompilations is, likewise, fairly standard. This is difficult to get right, since introspective or dynamic code can often go wrong (typically the re-compiled code is put in a segment that is marked as executable but not readable. Segmentation violations resulting from attempting to read it are trapped and the original code is substituted). David Chisnall 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

re: SMP support ref#19

I could see no mention of SMP support in the provided reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.55.43 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Parallels

Parallels desktop for mac is the only program (of this type) I've used aside from VirtualBox. Virtual box beta for mac is almost the same as parallels was a few months ago (meaning, pretty much same features, same install wizard, same guest tools installation, with just a few differences). Are other virtualization software so similar to one another? Should this be noted in the article? 76.201.22.234 21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

New version 1.5

Can someone update the article to talk about the new features? http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=1528 would be a good source, but since I'm not using v1.5, and I didn't write this article, I can't do a good job updating the article. I'm sure this article would benefit from a "new features in version 1.5" section, or updating the article in general, or something like that. Althepal 20:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Be bold --Treekids 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As there is an unfixed bug in version 1.5 preventing me from using version 1.5 on Windows, I can't do this yet. If someone who uses Linux or who can get it working on Windows is out there, they can be bold. Althepal 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

--OmegaElheats 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed a screenshot of me running Guest OS Windows XP of VirtualBox 1.5 on Host OS Ubuntu 7.04 in Seamless Mode 'as a new feature'.

"open source" vs "free software"

as I understand it, the correct term for anything under the GPL is "free software" not merely "open source". If i'm correct about this, the article needs to be changed to reflect that --69.243.242.58 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Virtually (no pun intended!) all open source software is free software. The distinction primarily relates to advocacy.—greenrd (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Open Source means that the source code can be modified, copied, and shared, but you might have to pay for the software. Free software means you don't have to pay for it, but it's source code may not be available to the public. For example, Quake 3 Arena's source code is open source, but the game is not free. Programs like iTunes and Windows Movie maker are free, but they are not Open Source. 205.213.92.64 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's like Greenrd says. 'free' in 'free software' means free as in freedom, not as in free beer. GPL software like Virtualbox is both free software and open source software. You could call it either depending on where you want to put emphasis. ThorinMuglindir (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a VirtualBox userbox if anyone is interested

Code	Result
{{User:CFeyecare/templates/virtualbox}}	This user puts OSes inside OSes with VirtualBox.	Usage

-- CFeyecare ^Talk! 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the image on this user box needs some improvement, do you mind if i try to find a graphic that looks a bit better at such a small size, that still conveys a concept of a virtual machine? Don't get me worng the picture is great at full scale but at aprox 50px I can't realy even see it in my 19" monitor --Koman90 A+ (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

USB support in open source edition

User Phobos11 added in this revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VirtualBox&oldid=214583198 on 24th May 2008 that "USB support is slated to be open-sourced in a later version of VirtualBox".

This has been tagged as "citation needed" for some months now. I have not been able to find a source for this, and no one can confirm it on the VirtualBox forums: http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=8477

Does anyone have any information on this? If not, I propose the sentence is removed. Justynb (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As it has been tagged for three months with no proof supplied, I say remove the offending statement. --TimTay (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that closed source features will appear in the "OSE" is on the page Editions ie "Note that this list may change over time as some of these features will eventually be made available with the open-source version as well. "

I would read this as "we will release our version into the OSE if somebody releases a dirty hack under the GPL to do the same thing for the existing OSE" 86.13.77.126 (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

2.1.0

Due to the new 2.1 release, some features like 3D acceleration need to be moved out of the future development section and into the features section. Althepal (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Raw hard disk access

• Raw hard disk access - allows a guest operating system to access its virtual hard disk without going through the host OS file system

Doesn't raw hard disk mean that it uses a real hard disk or partition natively, instead of (or in addition to) virtual disks? --Ikar.us (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Host OS Must Be x86 Based

It should be noted in the host operating systems section that although VirtualBox runs on both Solaris and OS X, it's limited to the x86 versions of each OS. SDNick484 (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"x86" is the fourth word in the article.

There's nothing VirtualBox, or any piece of userland software, can do to make it possible for its host OS to be non-native.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The host OS dose not need to be x86 Based, most if not all x64 OSes have a x86 Compatibility layer built in that is transparent to the user, similar to the way toy can still run 16-bit application on a 32-bit OS. Koman90 A+ (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you include the AMD64 variant instruction sets as part of the x86 architecture (as is the normal convention) then VirtualBox does require x86. It does not support alternative hosting architectures such as SPARQ, ARM, ... -- TerryE (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

VDI is essentially the container format of VirtualBox

The section Virtual and VDI did only discuss Virtual Desktop Infrastructure but the abbreviation is used for Virtual Desktop Image mostly. Thus, I added a new sub-section on Virtual Desktop Image and used a concrete example on how to increase the size of a VDI because it is undocumented on official VirtualBox guides as well as on the wiki. Also, it was impossible for me to subscribe to the VirtualBox wiki (private Sun's wiki?). Hope it is ok. --Nbrouard (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what VDI stands for but as a computer technician i tend to get a lot of acronyms thrown at me and i just call it what i think makes sence, fore example .vdi files are a virtual disk thus I call VDI Virtual Disk Image, because it is the same type of file as Microsoft's VHD Virtual Hard Disk and VMware's VMDK VMware Disk Koman90 A+ (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the Open Source, then you will see that you are correct: VDI stands for Virtual Disk Image. -- TerryE (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SVG icon

I re-rendered the icon to SVG in my attempt to transition icons, logos, and diagrams to the scalable vector graphic format, however it was reverted saying it was to "low quality", firslty with the re-rendering to a vector format you do lose some quality qhen it is viewed at the same size as the original file, however when blown up to the maximum the worst it loosks is like somene, or something drew it, that's all a SVG really is is a computerized drawing/painting, in my attempt to improve the quality the original SVG was rendered at 64 scans by color as shown on the left, this new one was rendered at 100 scans per color as right. sorry but inkscape wont render this image higher than 100.Koman90 A+ (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can't render it any better, let's leave it as the original PNG. I think it is important to see both the Sun and VirtualBox logos on the side of the cube. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed some things are best left in PNG i listed them for CSD they should be gone in a few days Koman90 A+ (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think i perfected the SVG Icon, however the problem is at 256 scans of color the icon is almost 100 times the file size of the original, and i don't think the wiki server will like that. This logo needs a "shloud not be SVG" flag if there is one, if not i should make one up. Koman90 A+ (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming: keep "VirtualBox" for now

Hi, I noticed the official homepage (still?) lists this simply as "VirtualBox", so I think it is better to keep it simply "VirtualBox". And even if the official name is one day changed to "Oracle VM VirtualBox", it might be an option to keep using "VirtualBox" due to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names, just like we use "office 2007" or "Microsof Office 2007", when the official/full name is "2007 Microsoft Office System". However, the main issue now is that the product still lists itself as "VirtualBox", so we should keep that name for now. Any further opinions? --SF007 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this Oracle page talks about Oracle VM VirtualBox, but that is just one page without an official announcement of name change. Not to mention it links to a page that only talks about "Sun VirtualBox". I say we should simply wait. --SF007 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually we don't have to wait on anything as it should not be changed regardless. Please have a look at WP:UCN for policy on this. We should leave the title of the article as its most commonly used name by people and resources. It should also be kept as simple as possible. "VirtulBox" is clearly its common name and its most common simplistic name. Therefor, despite the name change to Oracle VM VirtualBox, this wiki article should not change its title. JeremyWJ (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just gave two extra sources for the Oracle VM VirtualBox re-branding, yet one editor has removed all reference to the rebranding. Rather than revert again and risk 3RR I would appreciate a discussion here on why he thinks the three sources given are not reliable sources. I do agree that the article shouldn't be renamed, that was hasty on my part, but the name of the product has changed and the three sources confirm that. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone else seems to agree your rebranding is inappropriate. That 'VirtualBox' appears on one page preceded by 'Oracle VM ' does not mean they've rebranded it. You need to wait. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong Reisio. The article should not be renamed, but the fact that the product is now an Oracle product and not Sun (rebranded) should be in the content. The only reference needed for this is virtualbox.org. JeremyWJ (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... and what reference mentioning a rebranding on virtualbox.org are you speaking of? We don't have one. It just says "VirtualBox" exactly has it has before. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy - I don't want to go 3RR like Reisio just did, so will you please reinstate my correct version together with my references? --Simple Bob (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have, another edit by Reisio will be reported. Thanks for contributing to this article. JeremyWJ (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know there are some good guys out there! --Simple Bob (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tidy-up of Article

I have been reading this article. In overall quality it falls somewhat short of what I would view as the "benchmark" articles in this area which are those for VMware and VMware Workstation. I have decided to tidy the article up and give it a general refresh as a background activity over the next month or so. I will, of course, comply with the appropriate WP policies and guidelines in doing this. Before I start, I feel that I should declare my interests here. I am an IT professional who both uses VirtualBox routinely and is very familiar with the GPL codebase. I am a moderator at the VirtualBox user forums, though I am pretty much inactive there now. I have no financial interests in Oracle or its subsidiaries, just a fondness for the product :-)

If anyone has a problem with this or my edits then by all means contact me here or on my talk page. -- TerryE (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

usb support

I think this section must be updated. Vbox now supports usb for free version too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.9.138 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? The source which is the VirtualBox wiki still says this is only available in the proprietary version. Do note as the paragraph clearly specifies we are talking about differences between the proprietary version and the free software version. The proprietary version is available for free for personal use (which evidentally includes individuals in a business setting provided they install it and manage it themselves, but not for example a roll out by an administrator) and whatever is covered in the license. If there are any differences between the commercial version and the free version these aren't specified in the article, my guess is there are none other then what the license allows and support. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is mention in another location and while I feel it was resonably clear, I've modifed the wording [1] to make it clearer it's a difference between the proprietary edition and the free software version Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See the vendor's page Open Source VirtualBox and other editions which makes it quite clear that USB support is a closed-source feature which is not available under the GPL based Open-source edition. AFAIK, the main reason for this is that the USB support code wasn't itself made available under GPL or equivalent licence. -- TerryE (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mac hardware is no longer required to run OS X server

As, the title says, Mac hardware is no longer required to run OS X server in VirtualBox 3.2.8

Networking

It would be nice if someone describe the different models of networking between host and guest. Any volunteers? :-) --RokerHRO (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that given I'm a moderator on the VBox user forum and understand the internals of the product, then I could put this on my rather long todo list :( -- TerryE (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Licensing

I've reordered and simplified the Licensing section. Most readers will only be interested in the current version, so it makes sense to reorder this section to start with the V4 licence and then cover "prior to version four". I have done this. -- TerryE (talk)

The 2 lines about MacOS EULA have little to do here. They belong to the MacOS X article (I guess they are a leftover from some cleanup about Mac hardware requirements to rum MacOS in a VM). Removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.113.123 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant because VirtualBox can run Mac OS X as a guest, and the restrictions must be noted. I'll clarify this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added as a note in the featureset section? It feels like the licensing section of the article should be about VirtualBox licensing, not guest OS licensing. Otherwise you should add that you must own a MSWindows license to run Windows on VirtualBox, for example. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.113.123 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Windows licensing is not absolutely required for running as a guest in VirtualBox (I've evaluated many pre-release builds myself, which deliberately have no activation).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I am talking about. Guest OS licensing is required as if the VM was a physical machine. However it's implemented is irrelevant, and Windows was just an example. It is unclear to me why the licensing information of one single guest OS should be placed in the VirtualBox licensing section. Maybe it would be clearer if written like that actually (software ran inside the VM is still subject to normal licensing rules, for example AppleOS yadda yadda yadda). Just a thought. Like it is now it's really awkward.

Mac OS X also has very specific hardware requirements too. The licensing is just a written form of that.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, that is a characteristic of MacOS, not VirtualBox, or even MacOS in VirtualBox. It's just normal MacOS licensing. That belongs to the MacOS article, or if you want, to the featureset section (as it is indeed a technical limitation of the featureset) of the VirtualBox article, It has nothing at all to do with VirtualBox licensing, and it is very awkward to find it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.113.123 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It just happens that it's a special requirement for virtualizing, unique to VirtualBox. There's nothing more to it than that. VirtualBox is noted for being able to even run Mac OS. Also, please sign your comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It just happens to have nothing at all to do with VirtualBox licensing, so it is a bit weird to find it in the VirtualBox licensing section. Now if you absolutely insist on including the guest's technical enforcement of guest software's licensing terms in the VirtualBox licensing section, knock yourself out, I don't really care, I just think it would be more logical to put it in some technical section, such as the featureset section, as it is indeed a technical restriction of the featureset. Just trying to help. 96.21.113.123 (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Emulated environment

I propose to restructure this and clarify that there are two disjoint modes software and hardware based emulation. If anyone has a problem with this then please discuss it here. :-) -- TerryE (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have done the first tranche of this creating proper S/W and H/W emulation sections summarising the current (Vbox 4.0.6) documentation. I still need to add a few refs and wikilinks, but I'll pause for a day or so for feedback before doing any more -- just in case any other editors have problems with this :-) -- TerryE (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Spamming allegation

Hello

I see a contribution by 95.87.66.89 (talk) being constantly reverted without adequate edit summaries and I myself fail to see what is wrong with it. Before this thing turn into an edit war or newcomer biting, could some please explain?

Fleet Command (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the manuals added by the two WP:SPA IP's 95.87.65.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) and 95.87.66.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) to six different Wikipedia articles in the past 48 hours. If you look at the Joomla manual, for example, it is short, vague, badly written and virtually worthless. That is clear spam in my mind. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Bob regarding the intent of the links. The lack of edit summaries for the reversals of this particular IP is due to my use of a bulk revert script, but I did leave a message on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, please do not evade the main question: What is wrong with the contributions, specifically the one in this article? And what makes me who have also contributed to many articles (553 so far) not a spammer? Fleet Command (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't evade the question, I answered it. Have you looked at the Virtualbox manual posted? It is complete shite and the fact that this person has repeatedly added manuals from the same source to six articles makes him/her a spammer. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost, low quality contributions are not automatically spam. The user at the very least deserved a very polite note in his talk page.

In fact I did look at the manual. It seems like a genuine good-faith attempt in making a good manual. Currently, I am looking at the Ubuntu manual and it is not written by the same person. In addition I find the word "shite" too extreme and too opinionated in this case. Many contribute far worthless contents to WikiBooks and add their links to Wikipedia, yet none accuses them of spam. (Consensus definitely.) I advise you not to assume bad faith when there is no evidence to support this attitude. Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I finished investigation of the contributed links. All subjects to which this IP user has contributed have ties to the open-source world, most are open-source software products themselves. Their quality is also open-source class: They are written by average Joes of almost no notability, no Wikipedia accounts and no static IP addresses. This is exactly how the open-source grows.

If I were you, I'd pull my warnings and apologized. Fleet Command (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how to guide (WP:NOTHOWTO), and by extension there is no reason we should add how-to guides in external links, especially such poor quality ones. In fact if you look at WP:ELNO you will see a number of criteria by which these links can and should be excluded. However, per WP:DUCK this SPA is a spammer and no apology by me is necessary and no warnings issued by me will be withdrawn. You are entitled to your opinion, as are others, and if consensus is built that sites like this are not spam and that SPA's are not spammers, then I'm happy to accept community consenus. Until then I will continue to focus my efforts on fighting unwelcome rubbish like this. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please pay attention that when you give me a link, I might actually click on it and find out that you statements are pure lies! So, do not give me bull about WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:ELNO, WP:SPA and WP:DUCK. You will only succeed in ruining your own reputation. You have changed your stance on the matter three times ever since the thread is started. (First, "spam". Second, "low quality". Third, a mixture of "WP:NOT violation" and "EP:EL violation" nonsense. What's going to be next? I will no be wasting my time reading it.) Fleet Command (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Note - this discussion has been somewhat overtaken by events. The domain in question has been blocked at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist‎‎, and both 95.87.66.89 and the newly-registered account Momposi (talk · contribs) have been blocked by admins for spamming and block evasion. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Which discussion? There is no discussion! At least neither you nor Favonian has been discussing anything. Fleet Command (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this discussion, but I do track this page and I know a little about VBox (I am one of the moderators on their user forums). I think that describing this reference as "complete shite" by Bob isn't one that I would fully support. It's polished, but weak in content; it reads as is authored by someone who is a professional technical author, but with little knowledge of the product that is being described. My question would be more: what are the valid criteria for meriting the inclusion of a link to this particular HowTo (over the 100s on the Internet). IMO, both WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:ELNO definitely apply here. Given that Momposi's only edits were to place this and similar MakeUseOf links (all co-incidentally authored by the same tech author) on other pages as clear product-placement, I also think that this account was clearly acting as an WP:SPA in breach of WP policies, so the ban was merited; and the removal of these links was merited. I am not sure why Fleet Command would find this action inflammatory. TerryE (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with most of what you said. However, what I find "inflammatory" is biting the newcomer and rationalizing it, not reverting or blocking him. He deserved better. For you see, we have a lot of rationalization here: Whereas you, an uninvolved party immediately answered my question, Bob Re-born reluctantly gave four different answers (WP:SPA, low quality = spam, WP:ELNO and WP:NOTHOWTO) none of which are the reasons for which Momposi is blocked (i.e. edit-warring and WP:EVADE). All these rationalizations show that our dear friend here first reverted, then started looking for justifying excuses.

Frankly TerryE, if Bob Re-born had written what you have written, my second answer would have been "Er... okay, thanks. Cheers!" Fleet Command (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been flamed myself and no doubt responded in a manner that -- in the cold light of day -- I now regret; so I've been both your FleetCommand and Bob Re-born's position. We seem to get passionate at times, for reasons that seem unclear later. It's part of caring about the content, I guess. So WP is possibly the better for it in the end.

However, I like you am very unhappy about banning of such accounts almost at the outset. I've made the point in the past when trying to defend a different case is that every account is an SPA account until the account holder takes a wider interest. In this one, IMO, Momposi was probably the TA who wrote these articles. I feel that an appropriate response would been to remove the links, point the guy to the relevant P&G and warn that any repetitions could lead to banning. TerryE (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Fleet Command (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Features list or paragraphs?

I personally don't prefer either in particular. This concerns that tag about re-writing the features list in prose.

In my opinion, though, a list is more suitable because prose is best at elaborating, and there's little to elaborate on for the listed features.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think an embedded list of this size belongs in the article, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Wikipedia articles should not have excessive listings of statistics, especially because this one reads like a borderline change log. I think the important aspects could be explained in prose in proportion to their mention in reliable sources; listing every detail gives undue weight to the information. - SudoGhost 05:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)