jf_byrnes at comcast.net
Fri Jun 4 14:35:54 UTC 2010
Liam Proven wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jim Byrnes<jf_byrnes at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Liam Proven wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:47 PM, NoOp<glgxg at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 06/03/2010 07:52 AM, Jim Byrnes wrote:
>>>>> I'm running Lucid 10.04 which installed Virtualbox OSE 3.1.6. I would
>>>>> like to install an OS that recommends Vers 3.2. How can I upgrade to 3.2?
>>>>> Thanks, Jim
>>>> If you follow Liam's advise you will be downloading and installing the
>>>> VirtualBox Personal Use and Evaluation License (PUEL) version _not_ the
>>>> OSE version, which is what you said you want.
>>> Perhaps you read the message differently to me. My take was that Jim
>>> was running OSE and wanted to go to the latest& greatest. Perhaps I
>>> was wrong.
>> At the time I was just thinking about upgrading OSE, but only because I
>> had completely forgotten about PUEL.
>>> Personally, TBH, I don't see anything wrong with the freeware PEUL
>>> version. It's not hobbled with any "non-commercial use" or similar
>>> caveats or gotchas: you can use it for anything you want, anywhere you
>>> want. They just ask for - not demand, request - payment for multiuser
>>> site-wide rollouts. Seems very fair to me.
>>> This being the case I've never even bothered looking at the OSE. Why
>>> accept the compromises, unless one is a FOSS purist? (In which case,
>>> one would probably not be running proprietary OSs under VMs!)
>> I don't have any hangups about FOSS, right now it's just a matter of
>> caution. I have some important information in a XP VuirtualBox setup
>> and my backup solution stopped working.
> Well, all I can say is that I've gone from 3.1.2 to 3.1.4 to 3.2 to
> 3.2.2 (just today) with no problems or issues at all. Spotify is
> cheerfully playing Morcheeba at me right now from a newly-upgraded
> VBox using a VM created 4 versions ago.
> I have not tried OSE, as I said, but I have read that VMs can move
> smoothly from OSE to PUEL. The other way might be slightly trickier as
> it means some virtual hardware would be lost, but it works fine.
> Also, FWIW, my machine does /not/ have hardware VM, so it's a pure
> software VM, which is in theory harder. Alas, no H/W VM means I can't
> run OS/2 in VMs, something I did want to do. :¬(
OK, thanks for the reports of success. Once I get my backup situation
sorted out I will give it a try.
More information about the ubuntu-users