On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Eris Discordia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Eris, if you want to give last years iso a try (20070329, it works >> perfectly on MS Virtual Server R2 SP1), give me a shout and I'll put >> it somewhere you can download it. >> > > Many thanks for the offer, but I just don't have access to the required > bandwidth. I had downloaded the first ISO image at a facility with a > broadband connection. That luxury is currently out of question for me. > Anyhow, I had gotten Plan 9 running on QEMU until I gave up and just purged > the whole thing. > > Microsoft Virtual PC has so far been fine for running FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE, > NetBSD v3.0.1, SuSE Linux v9 and v10, Slackware Linux v10.1, PC-DOS 5.0, and > MS-DOS 6.22. So I guess Plan 9 is expecting something out of the ordinary, > or simply being too pedantic. That's one way to look at it, or you can just realize that emulators/virtualization *aren't* the same as real hardware. Real PC hardware is a pain to emulate, because it's not rigidly specified enough. As a result of this, we know people bother to test things like Virtual PC running FreeBSD and Linux as well as DOS, and then complain to Microsoft when it doesn't work. Since more of their customers have a use for DOS or FreeBSD or Linux, Microsoft is probably more inclined to fix their Virtualization for them. I'm afraid Plan 9 doesn't have a market share that's interesting to these companies to fix their virtualization so that all OSes work. Better is the enemy of good enough after all, and who cares if some obscure OS doesn't work on their virtualization platform. All they have to do is make the ones people are more likely to pay support to use work. So while I tend to agree with you that it will likely fall on the Plan 9 community to make this work with Virtual PC, if we choose to care to do so, I wouldn't say it's because Plan 9 is expecting anything out of the ordinary (It works on my PC, the virtualization is the non-ordinary piece). It might be true that it's being too pedantic for that virtualization package.... It's not a matter of blame though, the two pieces just aren't compatible. Dave > > > --On Friday, August 29, 2008 9:21 AM +0100 Robert Raschke < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Eris Discordia >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> It will eventually install but won't get past a specific step after the >>> installed system is booted. I asked about the problem on 9fans. No >>> solutions... yet. >>> >>> Here's the thread: http://9fans.net/archive/2008/01/547 >>> >> >> With the iso I downloaded this week, I also get the issue that Eris >> points out. >> >> Eris, if you want to give last years iso a try (20070329, it works >> perfectly on MS Virtual Server R2 SP1), give me a shout and I'll put >> it somewhere you can download it. >> >> Robby >> >> >
