On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:40 AM, vbox <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:50:12 -0300, fcassia <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Brett Serkez <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> >>> I was wondering if anyone else felt that perhaps there is an >>> architectural issue with VBox in this area? Seems to me that perhaps >>> VBox should be a service >> >> NO please don´t. I don´t like decisions like these being forced on >> users just because someone has ¨special needs¨.
Wanted to clarify. I didn't ask the question as I was looking for "special needs" cases and I wouldn't suggest an architectural change for such exceptional cases, rather I see this being potentially significant over the long-term in holding back the usefulness of VBox as I think it is likely to emerge over time that what might appear to be an exceptional case now might not be in the future. I might point out that in the "VirtualBox on Windows Hosts" forum this question comes up so often that there is a sticky posting on VBoxVmService as the first posting. I currently have virtual CentOS servers in production using Xen and am looking at the possibilities for VBox. My experience to date is that the notion of a GUI interface to a Service is more flexible and should be almost transparent to those interested in running VBox standalone (as it works today) while making it more production friendly, eliminating the need for "work arounds". I'm wondering if there are others with an opinion for a larger sampling? Thank you, Brett _______________________________________________ vbox-users mailing list [email protected] http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users
