* Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> [2008-12-30 02:56]: > On 2008-12-29, Michiel van Baak <mich...@vanbaak.info> wrote: > > On 15:22, Mon 29 Dec 08, Marco Peereboom wrote: > >> Those things crash more often than windows 3.11 > > > ><totally_offtopic> > > I'm getting a bit annoyed by statements like this. > > There are a lot of stable setups with virtualisation out there. > > they probably don't involve VMs run by either kernel developers working > on drivers that talk directly to vmware e.g. vic(4), vmt(4), or by people > actively working to take the whole host down...
it comes down to: Virtualization promises isolation, and doesn't even remotely keep that promise, today, regardless of the implementation. That makes it, for now, both a security and relibility disaster. Whoever running that shit for anything but testing, development stuff etc is an idiot. A dangerous one, unfortunately, because we all suffer from these idiots, their hacked vmwares/xens/younameit are used to spam and DDoS us. Virtualization has potential, I hope it gets usable in a few years. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
