Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 20:31, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I disagree. A virtual machine is no more proprietary than a
physical machine. Do we have any complaints about running
under any particular physical machine?
A physical machine might not require proprietary drivers or software to
support it. A proprietary vm image requires a proprietary software to
support it. See the difference now?
No, not as long as you can backup/restore a working system between
them. Hmmm, maybe the way to resolve the conceptual difference
would be for a 'fedora expert' to provide a tar image of what
they would like a new user to experience, and let someone
else drop that into a runnable vmware image. (See the 'no
difference' now?) The expertise of the installer/maintainer
is what I'd really like to have made available to the end user.
The vmplayer platform is just a handy mechanism that is
going to be used whether anyone likes it or not. The only
question is how well it will be done.
Can you or can you not use the VMware image without VMWare player? . If
it cannot be used with a proprietary application then the vmware image
is proprietary. It might be available for gratis or you might able to
backup or redistribute it even but as long as the content in the image
is unusable without a proprietary application it is definitely a
proprietary piece of software. Thats the best I can explain it. I am not
sure anybody here is going to support your argument that somehow VMWare
images are non proprietary. I will drop this discussion here since I
dont have anything further to explain on this particular issue. Thanks
--
Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
