Re: [SLE] VMware Workstation 3.0
I have solved the problem. I DID NOT use Volker's script again. I
Ehhm, I don't think I gave any scripts for vmware?
I have the article from Volker Kuhlmann "Installing VMware express 2.0.4 on SuSE Linux 7.3".
Is that article ok, and valid also for the VMware Workstation 3.0 ??.
It clearly states at the top that it is intended for 2.0.4, that means if you use it for 3.0 (with which you expect significant changes) you can't blame it on errors in the text if it doesn't work. Personally I won't get 3.0 soon as it's far too $$$$$ for the odd bit of quick M$ compatibility. For any substantial jobs I prefer native apps... My take is that some parts (of the writeup) will not be required or stuff things up, whereas other parts (e.g. the kernel header issue) will still require the same attention. View the text as a "good start", but with each step find out whether it's required before doing it. HTH a bit Volker
I have a registered copy of VMware 3.0 WS for Linux. Absolutely no issues with SuSE 7.3 Pro and VMware 3.0. I did not have to install, change, or modify anything on the system to get it up. /Dee v.kuhlmannKEEP@YOURSPAMelec.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
I have solved the problem. I DID NOT use Volker's script again. I
Ehhm, I don't think I gave any scripts for vmware?
I have the article from Volker Kuhlmann "Installing VMware express 2.0.4 on SuSE Linux 7.3".
Is that article ok, and valid also for the VMware Workstation 3.0 ??.
It clearly states at the top that it is intended for 2.0.4, that means if you use it for 3.0 (with which you expect significant changes) you can't blame it on errors in the text if it doesn't work.
Personally I won't get 3.0 soon as it's far too $$$$$ for the odd bit of quick M$ compatibility. For any substantial jobs I prefer native apps...
My take is that some parts (of the writeup) will not be required or stuff things up, whereas other parts (e.g. the kernel header issue) will still require the same attention. View the text as a "good start", but with each step find out whether it's required before doing it.
HTH a bit
Volker
-- W.D.McKinney (Dee) (907)349-4308 (Office) (907)349-2226 (Fax) http://3519098920
I found the exact same here, no problems what so ever. Garret W.D.McKinney wrote:
I have a registered copy of VMware 3.0 WS for Linux. Absolutely no issues with SuSE 7.3 Pro and VMware 3.0. I did not have to install, change, or modify anything on the system to get it up.
/Dee
Just curious if you used the original kernel or the 2.4.16 kernel. Does anyone know if vmware works with the 2.4.16 kernel? I couldn't get vmware to work after installing the new kernel but that may have been for other reasons than the kernel version. Thanks, Skip W.D.McKinney wrote:
I have a registered copy of VMware 3.0 WS for Linux. Absolutely no issues with SuSE 7.3 Pro and VMware 3.0. I did not have to install, change, or modify anything on the system to get it up.
/Dee
v.kuhlmannKEEP@YOURSPAMelec.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
I have solved the problem. I DID NOT use Volker's script again. I
Ehhm, I don't think I gave any scripts for vmware?
I have the article from Volker Kuhlmann "Installing VMware express 2.0.4 on SuSE Linux 7.3".
Is that article ok, and valid also for the VMware Workstation 3.0 ??.
It clearly states at the top that it is intended for 2.0.4, that means if you use it for 3.0 (with which you expect significant changes) you can't blame it on errors in the text if it doesn't work.
Personally I won't get 3.0 soon as it's far too $$$$$ for the odd bit of quick M$ compatibility. For any substantial jobs I prefer native apps...
My take is that some parts (of the writeup) will not be required or stuff things up, whereas other parts (e.g. the kernel header issue) will still require the same attention. View the text as a "good start", but with each step find out whether it's required before doing it.
HTH a bit
Volker
-- W.D.McKinney (Dee) (907)349-4308 (Office) (907)349-2226 (Fax) http://3519098920
** On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 19:57:47 +1300 (NZDT) v.kuhlmannKEEP@YOURSPAMelec.canterbury.ac.nzdashed off this message: **It clearly states at the top that it is intended for 2.0.4 <semi-rant> You expect folks to be on alert becasue you clearly state ... ??? ( fill in the blank here <G>) <G> ! I am going thru a semi annual "I want to change things on my computer today and have it up and running like it was yesterday by tonight at 7pm" hassle , here .. and not only does "clearly stated" information not seem to mean anything , it appears that *some folks* are unable to retain spoken commands as long as any reasonable trained dog in a cat neighborhood <heavy sigh> ;-\ ( I know, the first the one wonders is , why do they want to change the computer setup only to put it back "just the way" it was ?? It may be one of hte "secrets" of Life that remain unkown forever <heavy sigh> ) **My take is that some parts (of the writeup) will not be required or **stuff things up, whereas other parts (e.g. the kernel header issue) **will still require the same attention. View the text as a "good start", **but with each step find out whether it's required before doing it. this is very wise advice O sage ... too bad there isn't some way of having it flash rapidly at each attempt to change things <VBG> oh , no, wait.. I already have a migraine from having to deal w/ fols who insist I come to hteir cubicle , and then go back to mine and shout down hte hall at what my settings are ( that almsot always differ from whatever is is they thought "might be a nice change" be kind to the Admin staff folks, it can make all of our lives easier ( and might prevent you someday being permanently locked ou tof your computer by annonymous staff who have had enough of changes!! ) Change your wall paper, change your fonts , at least until your corespondents tell you to STOP it, do NOT change settings for things you do not understand ( so you can undo what you have just done!) Just because "Jim down the hall " read, or heard or thought he heard from someone , posibly on telly that this was a really cool way to do ... ( fill in the blank here again ) Although you believe you are the most importan thing in hte Universe , you wont be albe to get a Word processing document out if you yell at me once too often ( generally you can tell by extreem language that I am reaching the breaking point !) You have been warned , and the rest of the world mught want to take a hint as well , I ma not the only one w/ the Keys to the Kingdom ( at least the one you work in ) A modicum of respect is all that's required , after all, even if I am here before you arrive and long after cleaning staff leaves , I am probably as vital to the company as you are , AND I keep the Boss's Wifes box running as well .. in case you think there is an over my head aproach to things ! </rant> fiew! glad I got that off my chest .. <VBG> -- j afterthought : "Maytag" is my middle name; I'm an agitator.
participants (5)
-
jfweber@bellsouth.net
-
Skip Haak
-
suseuser
-
v.kuhlmannKEEP@YOURSPAMelec.canterbury.ac.nz
-
W.D.McKinney