<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Virtual-Machine-Manager on It&#39;s a Binary World 2.0</title>
    <link>https://www.ericsbinaryworld.com/tags/virtual-machine-manager/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Virtual-Machine-Manager on It&#39;s a Binary World 2.0</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:49:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.ericsbinaryworld.com/tags/virtual-machine-manager/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Oracle&#39;s Virtualbox vs Red Hat&#39;s Virtual Machine Manager</title>
      <link>https://www.ericsbinaryworld.com/2011/12/21/oracles-virtualbox-vs-red-hats-virtual-machine-manager/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.ericsbinaryworld.com/2011/12/21/oracles-virtualbox-vs-red-hats-virtual-machine-manager/</guid>
      <description> &lt;p&gt;I&amp;rsquo;ve been using Virtualbox for a long time to run virtual machines when I want to check out other distros before I install them on one of my computers or to review them.  It&amp;rsquo;s MOSTLY open source, although some of the key parts like USB 2.0 are free to use, but not open source.  So now that Red Hat&amp;rsquo;s Virtual Machine Manager is starting to look pretty useful I figured I should check it out.  That way I could be using a FLOSS virtual machine program - assuming the features were good enough to match Oracle&amp;rsquo;s offerings.  Also, Virtualbox requires a kernel module that has to be recompiled every time a new kernel is installed and that&amp;rsquo;s annoying.  I figured I&amp;rsquo;d test out both programs by installed a VM of Centos.&lt;/p&gt; <p><a href="https://www.ericsbinaryworld.com/2011/12/21/oracles-virtualbox-vs-red-hats-virtual-machine-manager/">Full post</a></p></description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
