Plex86 Lives, As Lightweight VM Technology 232
Kevin P. Lawton writes "Plex86 has been completely overhauled, and simplified to be a user (application) code only Virtual Machine technology. For running user code, many of the heavy weight x86-VM techniques are unnecessary. But the bonus is, Linux can easily be made to run inside the plex86 VM, so that the kernel is actually 'pushed down' to user privilege level. This has been demonstrated on both Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels. Thus, Linux can run in a plex86 VM without the need for any heavy virtualization. My goal is to keep the code base trim, tight, auditable and get to usable releases quickly. And to favor those goals over adding unnecessary complexities. The first milestones have just been reached, so it's still early in development. There are email lists available on the main plex86 site."
Taking So Very Long (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plex86 vs. VMWare? (Score:1, Insightful)
Last I checked APIs were available for both, and so were compilers.
Free software is not just for Linux.
-- Tino Didriksen / ProjectJJ.dk
Re:Plex86 vs. VMWare? (Score:4, Insightful)
plex86 has a heckuva long ways to go before it's even near competing with software like vmware.
provided that it even makes it there, companies like vmware have known it's coming for quite a while, and have surely been looking after their best interests just as if this were a commercial competitor.
competition is part of life, whether it be commercial, opensource, or the kid next door.
Re:Taking So Very Long (Score:5, Insightful)
Software, especially good software, takes a lot of time to produce. Anyone can throw off crappy code quickly but to make something you'll be able to keep secure and stable over it's lifetime takes time and effort. Unless you're the developer what do you care how the effort is being spent? it's not your time or effort so feel free to go about your business doing something you feel your efforts are more useful in.
As for me I find Plex86 interesting because I don't want to spend a fortune on hardware but sometimes I do like to have a sandbox enviroment to run development stuff, test apps, or just open questionable email attachments. Bochs is to slow to run many apps properly and if I was going to spend the money for faster hardware I might as well just buy new computers. It makes more sense to use a virtualized enviroment and save some money (and hassle).
Virtualization may not have as many users as web browsers but it's technology which for the most part will continue to be useful for a long time. The x86 processor has a long history of compatible code so there is no reason to think Plex86/Bochs won't still be useful a decade from now.
Re:Plex86 vs. VMWare? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that a community that could be broadly characterized as having heavy libertarian leanings encompasses so many, like you, who are willing to set aside those ideals for your pet project? I love VMware as much as the next person - I just think it's so cool seeing Phoenix BIOS show up in a window - but that doesn't mean I'm willing to set aside the capitalist ideals of free commerce and competition just so it will survive. If the Plex86 group can put together a better product and are willing to give it away, they win. If it takes them 10 years, then VMware has 10 years to find a different business model or go under. Businesses fail all the time. That's the way it works. If you can't cut it, you die. Meanwhile, Plex86 gets better in competition with VMware; VMware gets better in competition with Plex, and I win no matter which approach works best.
Re:Plex86 vs. VMWare? (Score:2, Insightful)
Those were interesting discussions. I happen to own a VMware liscence, and I use it occasionaly for particular virtualizing needs. I was anxious for Plex86, and mourned the impeding stagnation of the project when the project founder was fired. After two years, I'm still with VMWare.
Meanwhile, VMWare is being eaten at on a few fronts besides Plex86. The most recent evaluation we did for VMWare, pitted its virtual terminal server product against CodeWeavers' Wine server, Citrix, and good ol' Windows 2000. In the end Windows 2000 won, becuase, well, it was already there. Many window's programs have been decided that way.
I don't particulary see a difference in being undercut by a free solution, or being undercut by a built-in the OS solution (*ahem* Netscape). Nor do I see a difference between those undercuts, and being beat out by a better product from a different competitor.
In the end, its the developers obligation to ensure success with a quality feature full product. I think that is why, in the end, some have felt that OSS development models are better. But as far as interaction between Linux programs and free Linux programs, I see nothing out of the ordinary.
------------------
OnRoad [onlawn.net]: A review of "Piston Envy: The Sociology of Racing Games"
Adapt or Die (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Plex86 vs. VMWare? (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be obvious by now that the computer iliterate control more businesses, more markets and have more control over your freedom to choose than your government ever did. So then I wonder why a Linux user might choose to support a free software developer over a commercial package, which probably includes some form of registration, serial number for authorization or other form of commercial/capitalist tone that clearly shows the greedy in the eyes of all you shareholders.
Its pathetic that we can't play fair and get along and understand eachother. I understand you. But, no, there won't be commercial software for Linux for a long time, if ever. And you know something? That doesn't matter. Because it is not needed. We will write our own. so
Re:Summary: Kevin's a loser (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Resisting ... urge ... to comment ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, this could be the start of a second step. The first step could be to use plex86 to run user code, and bochs to run kernel code. The second step could be to use plex86 to run user code and "friendly" kernel code. Bochs could still run "unfriendly" kernel code. Kernel pages could be marked as friendly or unfriendly on the fly in later versions.
If kernel code is simplified by writing simplified drivers, this could be an interesting project. Even if it's not as fast as VMware, it would still be useful. Running Windows at about 300MHz on a 3GHz box would be good enough for many applications.
Re:This is just like a microkernel, just less clea (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with L4 is that OSes ust be ported to it. Virtualisers are supposed to be able to run OSes without porting them.
L4 is great, don't get me wrong. It's just not even close to being the same thing.