I m using Windows XP and Fedora core 5. Both are installed in my hard
disk. I want to use VMWare to avail parallel desktop. Is it
possible ???

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT), asit <lipun4u@gmail.com> wrote:

>I m using Windows XP and Fedora core 5. Both are installed in my hard
>disk. I want to use VMWare to avail parallel desktop. Is it
>possible ???

Yes, try installing vmware server after you install slackware ;)

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:35:32 -0700, asit wrote:

> I m using Windows XP and Fedora core 5. Both are installed in my hard
> disk. I want to use VMWare to avail parallel desktop. Is it
> possible ???

Bugger off, Win-droid.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

asit wrote:

> I m using Windows XP and Fedora core 5. Both are installed in my hard
> disk. I want to use VMWare to avail parallel desktop. Is it
> possible ???

Yes. You might want to look at VirtualBox (buildscripts available at
slackbuilds.org). Only drawback I've come across is that it can't cope
with a tickless system (if you experience crashes and find timing
related errors in its log with -1 ... that's a strong pointer).

Apart from that, it's faster than qemu and VMware on my sempron system.
And IIRC, only VMware has multicore support (yet).

-- Simon

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:28:35 +0200, Simon Sibbez wrote:

> asit wrote:
>
>> I m using Windows XP and Fedora core 5. Both are installed in my hard
>> disk. I want to use VMWare to avail parallel desktop. Is it possible
>> ???
>
> Yes. You might want to look at VirtualBox (buildscripts available at
> slackbuilds.org).

Why would you need a Slackbuild? Not trying to be a troll here, but I ran
it right out of the box and it installed and runs perfectly. Am I
misssing something by not using a Slackbuild script?

Ed Wilson <ewilson@jackmaxton.com> says:

>Slackbuilds are not needed at all, but they can make life a little easier.
>Sometimes the make file has a make install but lacks an uninstall feature.

Haven't seen a make w/o the uninstall for years. In any case,
uninstall isn't needed either.

>The Slackbuild would make a standard slackware package that can be used
>with installpkg and removepkg.

Junk. Only use this crap when you are making a system install.

>Another advantage is if the program
>requires anything extra, like flags being passed to the configure script
>the creator of the script would have likely figured that out, thus saving
>the step of finding the proper options to pass.

The reason flags are passed is because we all have different
hardware/software combinations. You want to know what the flags are
so as to customize the program to suit your own system.

You don't have a clue.

Bugger off.

cordially, as always,

rm

Leonard The Committed wrote:


> Why would you need a Slackbuild? Not trying to be a troll here, but I ran
> it right out of the box and it installed and runs perfectly. Am I
> misssing something by not using a Slackbuild script?

Slackbuilds are not needed at all, but they can make life a little easier.
Sometimes the make file has a make install but lacks an uninstall feature.
The Slackbuild would make a standard slackware package that can be used
with installpkg and removepkg. Another advantage is if the program
requires anything extra, like flags being passed to the configure script
the creator of the script would have likely figured that out, thus saving
the step of finding the proper options to pass. The last advantage I can
think of is ease of distribution to multiple computers, because you would
not have to compile for every machine.

--
Ed

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:34:03 -0400, Ed Wilson wrote:

> Slackbuilds are not needed at all, but they can make life a little
> easier. Sometimes the make file has a make install but lacks an
> uninstall feature. The Slackbuild would make a standard slackware
> package that can be used with installpkg and removepkg. Another
> advantage is if the program requires anything extra, like flags being
> passed to the configure script the creator of the script would have
> likely figured that out, thus saving the step of finding the proper
> options to pass. The last advantage I can think of is ease of
> distribution to multiple computers, because you would not have to
> compile for every machine.

That would make sense! Sorry, but sometimes I forget that I'm a single
user on my machine and have no others running. If I where "back in the
day" admining a network, it would make sense.