Desktops are usually more powerful less, expensive and easier to install additional hardware in.
I still say that reverting machines to look like windows2k is stupid, it is effectivly as mounting a dialing wheel onto a smartphone, simply because you are used to dial like that.
I abandoned this taskbar approach and all that long ago, it wastes real estate, makes you a "bonus miles" king on mousemovement and doesnt add any usability at all. My desktop looks a bit like the unity approach, but since over 6 years or so.
IG: Your gvfs problem might come from problems with policykit and udisks. This whole replacing of HAL thing made it a paing in the ass for people not using fullblown bloated desktops with proper ?dm login managers. Read a bit here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-858965.html
If you have set this whole thing up proper (I guess debian does the config stuff for you), you want to put this into .xinitrc and use startx:
exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch --sh-syntax --exit-with-session /usr/bin/enlightenment_start
replace "enlightenment_start" with whatever dm you want to start.
Thanks for the suggestion; that looks like it would work properly but I ended up just switching back to gdm3 and editing /etc/gdm3/daemon.conf to autologin the user. That way I'll be protected the next time they decide to change things around.
So perhaps as a Gentoo user you're familiar enough with system internals to answer this question: *why* did they decide to replace HAL? Did too many people have problems getting their pod bay doors open or something?
Would someone please explain to me why the heir apparent to Steve Jobs is a South African who is trying to turn my desktop into a cellphone?
For extra credit, you can then tell me why he wants to turn my cellphone into a desktop.
While I'm at it, will someone explain why the Stepford Wives of Open Source (refered to hereafter as 'Ubuntu Users' in the interest of brevity) descend upon anyone asking the above questions and hurl abuse? Everytime I seek answers, they storm the castle walls. Sure, their battle cries are muffled owing to their heads being crammed so far up their backsides. They still manage to derail all attempts by sheer weight of numbers.
The closest I could get to an answer was some gum-smacking kid who said, "Cuz Micro$oft". I also heard murmurs that sounded like, "It's progress. Don't be left behind".
Ten years ago, this stuff seemed like it had such promise. What the Hell happened?
Is it just me or does every time Open Source takes aim at, "A Brave New World", it instead nails "Idiocracy" right between the eyes?
Anyway, if the Dear Abby of this place would indulge me with answers, I'd sure appreciate it. In the meantime, I have to get some code written before my CentOS desktop is turned into a teenaged boy's computer science project.
It's no better in Microsoft-land, unfortunately. Microsoft in Windows 8 seems determined to foist a phone experience off on desktop users.
I can only imagine they wish to do that to make it easier to manage their code... instead of maintaining separate code for phones vs. desktops, they will only have the one bit of code to use instead.
Or, maybe, possibly, it has something to do with tablets. Tablets are sorta like desktops and phones combined. They typically have the usage of a phone with the formfactor of a laptop (which we'll think of as a desktop for convenience).
Maybe, if you can nail something that can cater to tablets, you'll have something that can work with both phones and desktop, and thus have that elusive single code base to use.
In the end, I suspect we will need to have different code bases for particular environments. We'll see what wins.
It's no better in Microsoft-land, unfortunately. Microsoft in Windows
Nor in Linux-land; see Unity!
I can only imagine they wish to do that to make it easier to manage
their code... instead of maintaining separate code for phones vs.
desktops, they will only have the one bit of code to use instead.
Apple already tried that with the MacBook Wheel, y'know.
At least in Linux you can change it back ... sadly, both the Microsoft and Apple environments are heading in the direction of making computers look and act like overgrown smartphones.
For some of the upcoming test automation work we're doing, we need to use a tool that, unfortunately, currently only runs under Windows. Instead of dedicating an entire machine to this tool, I've been considering running it in a VM under Linux--in this case, Fedora 11. My first question is, which VM software to use?
I've used VMWare Player before to run a Windows VM, but the host OS was Windows as well. Will VMWare handle a Windows VM under Linux just as easily? Are there any caveats I should be aware of? What about resource footprints?
Just because I'm familiar with VMWare, though, I don't want to automatically rule out other VM solutions. I've heard of KVM/QEMU, VirtualBox, and I've heard IG rave about ProxMox, but never having used any of those, I'm not even sure where to begin when trying to compare all of these.
If I had the time and luxury, I'd just load up a VM in each and see how it all works. No such luck, though.
The other big question I had was concerning how to interface with the VM.
For the most part, I expect that once I set everything up, it shouldn't require any maintenance. However, I still need to be able to access the VM in case there are problems. With VMWare Player, the VM appeared in a window on my desktop. I'm going to be deploying this on a rack-mounted server. Though it is attached to a physical console via a KVM switch, I'd prefer to not have to run a desktop session just to see a VM's display. How is this generally handled in Linux? I figure that in most instances, I'd set up either a VNC server or turn on remote desktop access inside the VM, but, since the VM will be running Windows, I expect that I'll have to access the VM's "console" from time to time.
To simply throw a couple of VM's online on Fedora, the tool you probably want to use is virt-manager.
Depends how mission critical this is going to be. If it's mission critical: VMware. If it's not: anything else. I'm disillusioned with some of the free/cheap/open products after dealing with the endless train of frequently subpar releases that's come out of Virtualbox (which is a nice product once you get it working, just don't upgrade it if it's working fine...)
OBTW, note that Windows isn't really licensed for use in a VM anymore (unless it's Server or something?) And I personally would hesitate to actually pay a unique license for a windows instance that would permanently be confined to a VM...
One alternative to that is actually Amazon EC2 which lets you spin up virtual Windows boxes on the fly, and with their agreement with Microsoft, all license fees are bundled into the instance-hour fees.
And it figures that M$ would toss a completely non-technical issue into the fray to mess things up.
Maybe this application will run under WINE.
However it is pretty clear that Microsoft is trying to stifle Windows VDI for as long as possible because they want people to buy real desktops, at least until they can figure out a way to shift the revenue into *their* cloud.
The IT managers I've spoken with all seem to say the same thing: the license people really want you to remote-access "your" physical desktop computer at the office. Windows 7 is built for that; when you remote to it, the monitor shuts off and the desktop resizes itself to the screen dimensions of the remote device.
On the other hand if you have a Volume License agreement, they aren
t going to stop you from activating licenses on virtual hardware instead of physical. What customers are asking for is a way to pool the licenses so they can be oversubscribed in a way that allows the customer to only pay for the license count that is used concurrently, but Microsoft does not allow that; they insist on receiving a full license payment for every installed copy.
Server is a different story. They know full well that every data center in the world is moving towards full virtualization, or close to it anyway, and will happily sell you licenses for that all day long.
We already use Linux to host our automated testing environment, and the vendor, in this instance, already provides stripped-down versions of their client software for Linux. It's just this one application that they don't have a Linux version of.
It's not a bad application, either. The user-interface is pretty slick.
It performs all of the functions we need it to, and gives us a lot of flexibility.
For automation, though, a slick GUI is completely unecessary. Once you strip that off, this thing really becomes a piece of middle-ware. It accepts commands from a client, and converts it into a different set of commands to be sent off to another server. Don't need a GUI for that, and that would run equally as well under Windows, Linux, MacOS, *BSD, or even DOS with the right IP drivers!
Uncensored and all citadel.org properties are running on a PVE host. I also have a six node cluster hooked up to shared storage over at the Big Blue X which we operate as a multitenant cloud.
On merit alone, PVE wins hands down. However I also like to look at where the community is going, and if it seems that there will be rallying around one particular piece of software or framework then that's worth something too; I don't want to have to manage a conversion job later on. That's why I originall went with KVM even though Xen was king at the time, and that worked out well. Right now, PVE is the best but it doesn't have widespread energy behind it. It's looking like oVirt may eventually grab that spot.
oVirt has Red Hat, IBM, and Cisco (among others) behind it. They spend a lot of time talking about "open governance" which seems to be a direct shot at the way Rackspace dictates the direction of the OpenStack project. Their message seems to be that oVirt will be the clear vendor-neutral answer to VMware vSphere.
I haven't tried oVirt yet but I plan to do a pilot project this year. From what I can tell it's not as drop-dead easy to install as PVE but it may scale better.
KVM with virt-manager is what I prefer for remote stuff, virtualbox is nice on my desktop, since it does sound and clipboard and other nice stuff.
virt-manager lets you use more than only KVM (vbox, xen, etc) and in combination with SASL blends into an AD environment. That is not entirely documented well, but it works fine here. You automagically can SSO into the VNC of your vm, too. But releases might be buggy, as loanshark pointed out. And their error messages are quite on the kabbalistic side at times.
Seconded on the KVM / Libvirt combo here. I prefer virsh for all my stop / start / force reboot that damn windows server needs. Virsh provides a nice terse interface via ssh (just the way I like it)....