VirtualBox vs. VMware on Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala
November 3rd, 2009 | by richfreedman |I updated my server to the 9.10 “Karmic Koala” release of Ubuntu.
Unlike my recent laptop upgrade, I upgraded instead of doing a fresh install – I have too much software installed there to go through re-installation if I don’t have to.
As I have mentioned here before, one of the things that I run on that server is a virtual instance of Windows XP, to support QuickBooks. For our business accounting needs, we then simply RDP to the virtual Windows XP instance to use QuickBooks.
I’ve been running that virtual machine on VMware. I like VMware. It works well, is well-polished, and the “Server” version is free. The one problem is that every time there’s a change to the Linux kernel, parts of VMWare have to be recompiled against the new kernel. This happens just often enough to be an annoyance, but until now, has not been a deal-breaker.
VMware has typically been slow to catch up to major kernel changes, and this upgrade was no exception.
Usually, someone comes out with a patch to the installer fairly quickly. This time, there is a patch, but it didn’t work for me.
I was able to get VMWare started, but unable to keep it running. It would crash, and then when I tried to run it again, it would tell me that it needed to be recompiled. After a couple of cycles of this nonsense, I decided to look elsewhere.
I’ve been using Sun’s VirtualBox at work for some time now, and it’s been very stable, though not quite as polished as VMWare. VirtualBox also supports and installs the DKMS (Dynamic Kernel Module Support), which promises to automatically recompile the VirtualBox driver when the kernel gets updated. Theoretically, this means that with VirtualBox, I won’t have to deal with this problem any more.
So, I set up VirtualBox, installed XP and QuickBooks, and everything is working fine.
I was pleased to see that the newest version of VirtualBox also supports bridged networking as part of the “normal” VM creation, via the GUI.
BTW, for the curious, I keep the QuickBooks file on the Linux host’s file system, and expose it to XP via a Samba share.
This makes it ridiculously easy to back up the file, and, as with the current switch-over from VMware to VirtualBox, I don’t have to worry about losing it in some virtual machine disaster.
One last thought. VMware, even when it is working, has lately taken the really annoying approach of re-implementing their console as a web application. If ever there was an application that should not be a web app, it’s a virtual machine console.
Of course, you can’t really implement the VM’s window in a web app, so they then go to a browser plugin. This works sometimes, but this is a silly way to do things, with a lot of overhead. I can see where it would be useful sometimes, but it shouldn’t be the only way to administer VMs. Also, the VMware console uses it’s own instance of Tomcat, but comes configured so that it conflicts with all other default installations of Tomcat (the shutdown port is left to it’s default value).
This is an amateur mistake, and has gone unfixed for quite some time. VirtualBox, on the other hand, has a nice, sane, desktop console. +1 for Sun!

6 Responses to “VirtualBox vs. VMware on Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala”
By Don on Feb 19, 2010 | Reply
I have a quick question about Virtualbox… since I usually move files around on usb sticks regularly, does virtualbox allow windows to see a usb flashdrive? If not I guess I could drop things in dropbox… buut would really like the usb option to work.
By richfreedman on Feb 19, 2010 | Reply
There are two versions of VirtualBox.
The Open Source Edition (OSE) does not have support for the USB port.
The “Personal Use and Evaluation License” (PUEL) version does support the USB port, including USB over RDP.
For more info, see http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions
By Linda Kingsley on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
I have a Macbook Pro 2.6 ghz intel core 2 duo 4gb 667 mhz ddr2 sdram on which I have OS X 10.5.8 no plans yet on upgrading to snow leopard. I have a copy of vmware fusion v3.0.2 so I can run win-xp …. I also have a copy of ubuntu 9.10 which I am considering installling. Ubuntu prompts me to install vmware tools which I have tried to do but have not been successful. To get ubuntu to boot at I have to send a vulcan neck pinch :-P as I was getting hung with a vmware easy install terminal screen. How does one nuke that critter?
Next question …. is there a difference between virtualbox vs vmware?
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/ has crossover …. ditto on the difference question?
Your opinion on the superiority of these products would be gladly accepted.
On a personal note, I cut my computer teeth on a Unix System V system, then I went PC then I went Mac (never to go back to PC).
thanks for listening.
By richfreedman on Mar 6, 2010 | Reply
Not sure how to solve your VMWare problem – I haven’t installed it recently, and have never run into that problem.
For desktop use, VirtualBox pretty much does everything that VMWare does. I have, in general, found it easier to use and manage.
I’ve only run it on Linux, but I do know folks who are running on OS X, and it seems to work fine for them, with both Windows XP and Ubuntu guests.
Both VMWare and VirtualBox virtualize the hardware, allowing you to install a “guest” operating system.
Codeweaver’s “crossover” product attempts to emulate the Windows API in your “real” operating system. It is the commercial version of the open-source Linux project called Wine (“Wine Is Not an Emulator”), that has since been ported to BSD, Solaris, and OS X. This allows you to run some Windows applications – I use it in Linux to run XMLSpy. It’s a useful tool, but certainly no replacement for running Windows on either VMWare or VirtualBox.
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and System V was still shiny, I was a system admin for about a year. Had to install it from tapes…
By fritzelshitszl on May 16, 2010 | Reply
no directx or opengl stuff works on virtualbox from my machine,but crossover runs most things. virtualbox is good for say.. filemanager. why dont the coders just stop making windows programs and ditch that crap for ever.
By richfreedman on May 16, 2010 | Reply
fritzelshitszl – I share your frustration with the operating system from Redmond.
However, VirtualBox and VMWare are not just better ways to run applications written for that OS.
I use VMWare and VirtualBox on my Linux machines primarily to run additional Linux VMs.
I personally don’t care that folks spend their time writing applications for the most commercially successful operating system.
What I do mind is when they write applications that only work on that operating system.
As I may have mentioned elsewhere, my wife runs a small business, and uses QuickBooks – there’s really no viable alternative. Consequently, there’s a copy of Windows XP running on VirtualBox on my Linux server at all times :-(