Linux has generated a strong curiousity to know what else is out there in terms of not just operating systems, but computers in general (but I have to admit, software intrigues me far more than hardware, and operating systems are kind of the *ultimate* software). I want to stick with Linux, but I also want to see what BSD and UNIX (e.g. OpenSolaris) are like. I have also been reading up on AIX, HP-UX, Amiga, VAX, VMS, and MVS. I've even been reading about CPM!

I certainly have no plans to run *all* of those, but I want to know about them, and it seems logical to focus on BSD and UNIX along with Linux.

So my plan for now is to build one large machine that will run Linux, but have the resources to virtualize at least two other machines, BSD and UNIX. I might, if things fall into place, also virtualize Windows, but that's on the back burner and not a priority.

If anyone has any comments, criticisms, or advice, I'd appreciate it! I am a very ignorant man, but I want to learn...

The easiest way is to have multiboot systems with multiple primary partitions (bsd needs to be on a primary). Unless you want to run something on each of the OS simultaneously ... virtualization may not be really justified.

I agree with amani, multiboot is the way to go. After three or four distros virtualization tends to slow down.

Here is a tutorial on booting multple systems by chainloading them.

http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showt...hreadid=147959

I tend to disagree -- Virtualisation IMO is the way to do it especially if you need to run the OS'es concurrently. OK it takes a bit more hardware but disk space is CHEEEAAAP -- SATA 1TB disks available currently for around 80 USD and memory also costs peanuts.
A 4 - 8GB ram machine with a dual core intel processor and some decent disks should be able to run maybe 8 - 10 VM's depending on what you want your VM to do. With a Quad processor you are laughing -- you'll get nearly 100% native speed on your VM's especially if you use a decent 64 bit Linux host OS.

Even two years ago I would have gone for the multi-boot option but now Virtualisation is the way to do it.

If you don't want to pay for VMWARE workstation either use VMware server or use QEMU to create a VMware compatable Virtual machine and run it with VMware vmplayer - google on QEMU - there's enough blogs on the web explaining how to create a vmware compatable virtual machine using QEMU.

Cheers

-K

There is rarely a "best" way to do anything - and as alluded above, the ground is always shifting.
To run at least some of the above (presuming licensing can be resolved) will require emulation. I prefer to run emulators native - and optimized; gentoo in my case.
Vt-x type hardware and a reasonably setup base system might work.

Maybe.

No

And I disagree!!
First, how often does anyone need more than one OS going at the same time? (Yes, if you do need this, then you want a VM---or 2 computers.)

If you are like me and often have difficulty doing even ONE thing at a time---stick with multiboot. The simple fact is that---the more that is going on in the computer, the slower it runs, and the higher the probability of a crash. In the classic case linked above (145 OSes), each one still runs with the same speed and reliability as if it were the only thing on the computer.

well I partially agree with everyone here...because I am so nice at xmas time?

but what purpose do we assume someone needs to run multiple systems?

to compare?...then emulation is not a good option...run it natively...but then you need to install bootchart and look at stats...or does a certain hw work or not?

to use to show others ....= advocate...well you are probably looking for a gui distro with codecs all enabled etc

or some other reason that escapes me.

Personally....wait for it....try and stick with one distro and learn it well.

sidux is my new favourite.

cheerio

I partially agree with 99% of the people on the planet.......
I have stayed with the distro in my profile for well over a year now......

But seriously...What is the objective?.....What problem needs to be solved?

No best way to run multiple systems. Both virtualizations and multiboot has their pros and cons.

What does crash has to do with multiboot, virtualization and "how much is going on"? As I understand it, if guest os crashes in vm, nothing should happen to host os. And computer shouldn't crash because of 100% cpu load. Or am I wrong here?

FYI just to throw in some additional information.
VAX is a computer not an operating system which used to run VMS. You would need an IA-64 or IA-32 to run VMS anyway. MVS I belive runs on IBM main frames. AIX and HP-UX are not free and CP/M would only be as interesting as MSDOS. Trying to find CP/M might be a bit of a challange but there are Amiga emulators. I've had the opportunity to play will all of the OSs except for AIX and MVS.

It's almost exclusively curiousity. I am more than happy with Ubuntu and Fedora as my primary distros, but I would like to know what BSD and UNIX "feel" like (e.g. installing and uninstalling software, seeing how their security and permissions work, etc). I'm sure I could simply read about them, but that's not the same as actually using them. OTOH, reading about all those other OS's has been good enough!

For example, I read that Solaris was designed largely for SPARC/RISC processors, so there have been some issues getting it (and OpenSolaris) to run on x86 architectures. I know it has been done, but can *I* get it to work?

Ideally, I would like to be a renaissance man: I would like to know a little about everything.

I run multiple systems simultaneously all the time. Usually it is a Win2000 or WinXP installation booted in VMWare Workstation on my Linux workstation, though sometimes I'll evaluate another Linux distro by installing it in the VM.

Why? Legacy Windows apps that I need. I don't have to shut down anything else or reboot to get to those legacy apps.

I market and sell a windows-only product, and I do all the development and support in Windows.

Cross-platform development. Having whichever OS's I need all running at once greatly simplifies this; I can compile for the specified target and know right away that it is OK (or not).

Network development - all in one box.

Installation testing. I boot a non persistent version of Windows, install the software, and make sure everything went OK.

Playing with suspect software. Sometimes I boot a nonpersistent Windows, block it from the network, then load virus or trojan software on it just to play with it.

I can't play graphics intensive videogames in the virtual machine, but I don't do that anyway.

Compared to repairing a normal Windows installation, recovering a virtual machine Windows is trivial. I just back up the virtual machine files periodically as part of my normal system maintenance, then if things go wrong I just reload the backup FILES - not filesystem - fileS - and the system is working again.

All things being equal, the chances of a crash are increased when the computer is doing more. The more processes that are active, the higher the probability of one of them taking the system down. Similar logic would apply as memory utilization increases.**

To put any meat onto this postulate, one would have to understand what causes computers to crash. Sometimes it is a flaw in the SW, but it also could be a cosmic ray flipping a bit in memory.

My theory is that computers--once loaded with a lot of complex SW--are not deterministic.

**Take a 700MHz P-III with 128M of RAM, load it up with Win2k and then start opening multiple instances of MSword and 20 different web pages. Crash virtually guaranteed.

I agree. Once a computer is heavily loaded with complex software then you make statistical predictions about what will happen, not deterministic predictions. If you load up a computer with complex software running on individual operating systems running on a virtual machine then you make predictions using that special branch of statistics called chaos theory.

---------------------
Steve Stites

This depends on the definition of "doing". Windows does so many things without our knowledge and control that it is valid to say it is often "doing" something. Assuming that Linux does not do much unless there is an interactive user doing something, then once Linux gets paged out it is essentially irrelevant. Or at least, I hope so.

I assume you are not dependent on Windows. For those that are, then you can't convince them that they must put it aside in order to use Linux.

Or is Linux unstable and that is why it is not practical to use it with Windows?