Virtualbox on Libreboot w/Trisquel?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Hello, sorry for so many questions. But will installing Virtualbox on Libreboot w/Trisquel be possible? Will there be any issues?
Thank you!
Virtualbox and his dkms packages are GPL (free software), and runs fine everything, but you can not use USB-2.0 or USB-3.0, support USBs superior to 1.1 you need to use proprietary extension packages. So you should not run them.
https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch01.html#intro-installing
For best emulation you need some ram, some CPU cores and maybe Intel CPU with VT-x.
Sorry, I'm a little confused by what you wrote. Which version would I choose to download from their site?
Starting with version 4.2 compiling the BIOS used by VirtualBox requires the Open Watcom compiler, which is non-free: https:name at domain/msg34687.html
"VirtualBox OSE Guest Additions" are non-free too: http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/multiverse/v/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso_5.0.10-1/copyright
That is why VirtualBox is not in Trisquel's repository anymore and why you should not use it.
So my info was wrong :(
Their licences are unclear.
>requires the Open Watcom compiler, which is non-free
Can you elaborate?
The software you download is libre software? At which step
does the compiling take place?
>Guest Additions are non-free too
You cannot get full screen mode, if you do not want to run non
libre software?
Watcom C/C++ is used in Virtualbox to to compile the BIOS.
The Open Source Initiative has approved the license as open source, but Debian, Fedora and the Free Software Foundation have rejected it because "It requires you to publish the source code publicly whenever you “Deploy” the covered software, and “Deploy” is defined to include many kinds of private use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watcom_C/C%2B%2B
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Open_Watcom
Debian Wiki (no comment !) :
A proprietary extra package enhances the base experience
https://wiki.debian.org/VirtualBox
https://processor.revolvy.com/topic/Watcom%20C%20compiler&item_type=topic
Watcom C/C++ was a commercial product until it was discontinued, then released as freeware under the name Open Watcom C/C++.
I am a member!
It's stuff like this that makes me want to avoid Debian.
But the features in Debian are so alluring!
I wonder if Fedora is better than Debian, since the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines were taken from Fedora's community guidelines.
I'm scared Trisquel won't make it.
https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/12011
hmmm why some people says that is free and open software? I saw Watcom as MIT in github, and another Watcom v2 as proprietary licence. Very confusing.
Is the compiling done on my computer or on the computer which compiled the debian virtual box software, you can download? If the software you can download is gpl 2 licensed, then how can there be non libre software in it?
Vita_Cell gave the link above :
The compliling is not done on your computer, but the Virtualbox BIOS (software) is built with that compiler which is considered non-free due to compliance issue.
It does not matter much where the code is compiled. The point is you cannot really know what the binary does because it requires a binary compiler to be made. It may include malicious software into the binary for instance.
Thanks for the precision, and the potential malicious software threat this can implicate, reading thoroughly the Wikipedia Watcom C/C++ page it is stated that libraries necessary for it to be compiled could not be released as open source.[citation needed]
http://openwatcom.org/about.php
https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ
ftp://ftp.openwatcom.org/install/license.txt (download link)
What is the reason they call it as "open" watcom?
What is the reason they call it as "open" watcom?
'Open'Watcom' page about says that in the first half of 2002, the source was finally made available under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License, version 1.0.
The FSF mentions Open Watcom on https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html under the Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source paragraph as For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.
But as you mentioned vita_cell Oracle VM is Licensed under GPLV2 (guest additions too) this leads to confusion.
https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ
Assuming Open Watcom compiles non-free librairies , thus opening the door to a malware binary(ies) as an executable program code which could contain data, instructions for malicious malware program to run in your OS.
It would be helpull insight if those librairies, licenses could be cleary identified and pinpointed
http://perforce.openwatcom.org:4000/@md=d&cd=//depot/&c=1eZ@//depot/openwatcom/?ac=83
There is a fork, but what is the significant difference(s) with the Original ?
https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2
the question is, why the hell developers moved to use that compiler sinse 4.2 version?
That non-free shitty compiler looks outdated, and GCC advances very fast.
Good point ! your link gives some answer though :
We have invested some time looking for a solution to this, but did not find anything which could be done with the development resources available. Just now it is not a priority for us, which I trust you will understand if you look at the big picture, but if anyone can make this work to our satisfaction using a different compiler (that is, in a way which doesn't need lots of additional work on our part but still meets our standards) and provides the required build system patches we might well include them.
https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/12011
That compiler looks rather dubious to me ;-) ..
I read that someone already tryed to compile with different compilers, and compile fails.
Really it looks like NSA backdoor or something else to me. Good way for include gifts for the user, like Intel's ME gift.
Previously Virtualbox was working fine without any Watcom crap, here just no need for other non-free compilers.
Essentially they don't seem to value enough the freedom of the software
in question (or the lack of it). ;)
name at domain writes:
> Good point ! your link gives some answer though :
>
> We have invested some time looking for a solution to this, but did not
> find anything which could be done with the development resources
> available. Just now it is not a priority for us, which I trust you
> will understand if you look at the big picture, but if anyone can make
> this work to our satisfaction using a different compiler (that is, in
> a way which doesn't need lots of additional work on our part but still
> meets our standards) and provides the required build system patches we
> might well include them.
> https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/12011
--
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
(apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
The fork brings no significant changes as to 'freedom' as it uses the same Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0
https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2/blob/master/license.txt
>It does not matter much where the code is compiled.
Your criticism is, the compiler is non libre software and can unknowingly to those, who do the
compiling, put unwanted software into the virtualbox binary?
The fact, that the compiler is non libre software does not prohibit the virtualbox binary from
getting a gpl license?
Using a libre software compiler, does not stop the virtualbox people from editing the
compiler and introduce to those downloading the binary unwanted software in the virtualbox
binary?
Your criticism is, the compiler is non libre software and can unknowingly to those, who do the compiling, put unwanted software into the virtualbox binary?
Yes.
The fact, that the compiler is non libre software does not prohibit the virtualbox binary from getting a gpl license?
If you receive a binary, you must trust whoever built it. E.g., the Trisquel project compiles all the packages it distributes so that you only have to trust the Trisquel development team.
But you do not have to trust anybody: you can build the binary from source. The process is trustfully as long as every program in the build chain (in particular the compiler) is free. Well, it is actually more tricky than that. Ideally we should always have reproducible builds (Debian has been working on that for years): https://reproducible-builds.org/
Using a libre software compiler, does not stop the virtualbox people from editing the compiler and introduce to those downloading the binary unwanted software in the virtualbox binary?
If they are evil, VirtualBox's developers can simply compile and distribute in a binary form a modified version of their program. However, VirtualBox's developers may not be evil and the binary you receive from them still be tainted because the authors of the nonfree compiler are evil.
Thank you.
I got it.
If VB isn't good, which VM program would work? This is on an old Thinkpad T400 with Libreboot and Trisquel 7.
Virtual Machine Manager (virt-manager in Synaptic)GUI,
Is very similar to VB and user friendly
https://virt-manager.org/
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Virtualization_Administration_Guide/chap-Virtualization_Administration_Guide-Managing_guests_w...
Depending on how much RAM you have, Virt-manager will work fine on a Lenovo T400 with a Trisquel Mini as guest with aprox 500 to 700mb of RAM aloctated to it (more if you have, leaving at least 1 Gig RAM to your host system)
It's been a while since i last used it, so from memory i installed Qemu, KVM & Virt-Manager, once the guest installed on your HD (like in VB) you have to start it in a terminal as root :
$ sudo virt-manager
Installing debug tools can be usefull it will warn you in the terminal of possible errors
There is also Aqemu ( Qt5 graphic) , GNOME boxes (GNOME boxes is really quite gready in ressources).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QEMU
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/virtualization-using-kvm
https://manpages.debian.org/stretch/virt-manager/virt-manager.1.en.html
Thank you. On the Libreboot says this:
"Compatibility (without blobs)
Hardware virtualization (vt-x)
The T400, when run without CPU microcode updates in coreboot, currently kernel panics if running QEMU with vt-x enabled on 2 cores for the guest. With a single core enabled for the guest, the guest panics (but the host is fine). Working around this in QEMU might be possible; if not, software virtualization should work fine (it’s just slower)."
So, does this mean VB would work, just be slower? What about KVM? I'm wondering because of the vt-x is not enabled normally on these machines and without the host BIOS I dont think I can enable it.
My experience is with a non Libreboot Lenovo T400 ;-)
No freedom problem with KVM. Mangy Dog suggested you virt-manager. That GUI can manage KVM's virtual machines.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios