VMWare Inc. Releases Free Virtual Machine Runtime

rfinnvik writes "VMWare Inc. has released a new free (as in beer) virtual machine runtime called VMware Player. According to VMWare, this free VM runtime makes it possible for anyone to run virtual machines created in their Workstation, GSX or ESX products. It also runs virtual machines created in Microsoft's virtualization products. The runtime is available for both Windows and Linux."

see, now I'm gonna try linux..

[way2trivial (601132)]

why- cause it really WONT cost me anything to try...

Just pray I'm a vocal member of a new majority...

Or you could download Ubuntu

[Solr_Flare (844465)]

Unbuntu has two different versions. One is an install CD, the other is a run CD that lets you launch linux from disc without installing anything. Now, of course, the CD version is going to be more limited, but given that you can read/write fat32 and network NTFS(and read local NTFS) you can still do a decent bit with it. It's not bad at all if you just want to give linux a whirl and see what it is all about/teach yourself how to use some aspects of linux.

Re:see, now I'm gonna try linux..

[Chasuk (62477)]

I'm using the VMware Player to browse Slashdot, RIGHT now, with something called the "Browser Appliance," which I also downloaded from their site. "Browser Appliance" consists of a version of Ubuntu and Firefox 1.0.7. It works slicker than shit, with almost zero system degradation.

I'm impressed!

Re:see, now I'm gonna try linux..

[tommy_traceroute (701929)]

Is QEMU usably fast?

Depends on your definition of "usably."

I've got a USB stick with Damn Small Linux installed, both bootable and through QEMU, and it's screamin' fast when booted direct, but barely manageable on an Athlon 2500+ under QEMU. If you do most of your work from a terminal, it's fine, but the GUI, not so much.

So, answer = not really, but it's still damn cool.

Existing virtual machines?

[eMartin (210973)]

AFAIK, the existing virtual machines really just consist of a simple plain text file that describes the machine, and a disk image that can be one created by VMWare or another text file that points to a "standard" image file type.

So, does this mean that if I create those files myself, I don't need the commercial products at all?

Re:Existing virtual machines?

[RLiegh (247921)]

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing out there which can create (Bochs and Qemu can read) VMWare disk images, and they're more advanced than simple raw or dd-created files with filesystems slapped onto them.

Re:Existing virtual machines?

[yeremein (678037)]

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing out there which can create (Bochs and Qemu can read) VMWare disk images, and they're more advanced than simple raw or dd-created files with filesystems slapped onto them.

Actually, if you create a "pre-allocated" virtual disk (as opposed to dynamically growing), you'll end up with a text file "something.vmdk" that provides disk geometry and points at a raw bit dump "something-flat.vmdk". VMware (Workstation 5.0, anyway) can use an existing dd dump if you create a .vmdk file that refers to it. I've done this several times.

Re:Existing virtual machines?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I have a tutorial with some details up at:

http://www.laportestyle.org/tutorials/ghostinthema chine.php [laportestyle.org]

Re:Existing virtual machines?

[mvdw (613057)]

Whatever their format, is there something in the VMWare license that says you can't share them? Because if it's possible to share them, then someone with a valid copy of VMWare (or even, dare I say it, an evaluation version), can create a whole bunch-o-images, and the rest of the world can benefit.

Re:Existing virtual machines?

[Curunir_wolf (588405)]

This looked great, but the verbage on the web site is a little misleading. I downloaded and installed it thinking "Great! Now I can load up those MS Virtual PC Images I've been using for testing (and supporting those legacy VB6/Access applications), and I don't have to boot to Windows anymore!"

When it didn't work, I had to dig around the site, eventually downloading the "VMwarePlayerManual10" PDF file, where on page 3 I found:

Microsoft Virtual PC and Virtual Server Virtual Machines (Windows Hosts Only) On Windows hosts, VMware Player can run Microsoft Virtual PC and Virtual Server virual machines. When you open a Virtual PC virtual machine in VMware Player, it automatically creates a VMware-compatible configuration file (.vmx), while preserving the original Virtual PC (.vmc) configuration file. You can save the VMware-compatible virtual machine.

But can I then load up the VMX in the Linux version of the player? It doesn't seem to like it very much - I guess it just doesn't work.

Crap! I guess I have to plunk down some $ and re-create thost images in VMWare if I want to do that - easier just to keep booting into windows - it takes hours to install and configure Windows on a new virtual machine...

This could be very cool for demoing Linux apps

[multiplexo (27356)]

Right now you have live CDs that you can boot from to run Linux on a Windows machine without touching the hard drive, but you then have to reboot the machine into Windows to run your Doze stuff, now you could run Linux apps in your Windows environment. Another cool application might be a virtual machine that runs your browser and another one that runs your e-mail, get a virus? Not a problem, it's isolated in the virtual sandbox. I haven't worked with vmWare in a long time, how does the performance stack up these days? I might have to get a copy and play around with this.

Re:This could be very cool for demoing Linux apps

[cerelib (903469)]

If you check out their prepackaged virtual machines you will see one called "Browser Appliance". I think it is essentially a sandbox machine that just runs a browser isolated from your host OS.

Re:This could be very cool for demoing Linux apps

[way2trivial (601132)]

pfft.. think, limited time trials of EXPENSIVE apps,, that you can 'roll back' to the original date

Re:This could be very cool for demoing Linux apps

[notb4dinner (558244)]

By doing that you're still breaking the license agreement so it's really no better than pirating them.

Gee, that's nice.

[RLiegh (247921)]

However, given the compatibility problems with previous versions of VMWare I am not sure how much use it will be to people who download Open Source VMs off of the web to run (and I assume that's part of who this is aimed at). I've read a couple of places, for instance, that the current version of VMWare won't run the VMWare installation of Plan 9 that you can download from Bell Labs.

That said, you can run Qemu [qemu.org] with kernel acceleration on Linux, FreeBSD (a platform VMWare doesn't even support) and 2000/XP and get pretty good performance - and it's probably a better option than a mere 'runtime' given that not only does it support an additional platform (FreeBSD), but you can create a VM on one platform and run it on all the others (even ones w/out accerlation, such as NetBSD -though you really would not want to).

Response to new alternatives

[by Anonymous Coward]

Anything free out of VMWare these days seems more like a response to free competitors like QEMU [qemu.org] (or it's faster virtualization form KQEMU) than anything else.

Still, in the time between QEMU catches up to VMWare feature-wise it's nice to have a legal-but-hobbled copy.

Excellent for "black sheep" corporate Linux users.

[GiMP (10923)]

Need to run Linux at work but corporate policy won't let you? (or plan to install Linux anyway, but need that killer-app for Windows?)... Boss won't buy you a copy of VMWare?

Buy your own copy for personal use and simply install this "player" on your work PC. Need multiple users wanting to emulate an OS and don't have terribly high demands? One copy of vmware... multiple players.

I'm drooling.

USB adapters...

[Gopal.V (532678)]

So far, no virtualization systems I've used has ever supported dynamic USB support.

I wonder what kernels their Linux player supports usb support. I assume it will be something like FC4 or RHEL ?.

Can someone who has downloaded tell me how the usb hotplugging works for you ?.

Browser Appliance from USB key

[www-xenu-dot-net (922425)]

Does this mean what I think it means...I can run their Browser Appliance from a USB Key for free? That would be awesome....!!!

A posting from VMWorld

[dosguru (218210)]

Player has a lot of positive buzz right now here, as soon as we all get back home they'll be thousands of player installs all over North America. This is the product I've been hoping for to help demo products for external customers, and allow internal clients to use VMs without having to pay extra money or allow them to change things.

Xen who? It's not even on the radar here. Nothing against Xen, but it is years behind WS5 or ESX3.

Microsoft has been here giving away Virtual Server 2005 with a free R2 update. I have 4 copies of it and I have no idea what to do with any of them. MS was presenting today how they plan to integrate Virtual Server directly into Longhorn. How long with VMWare count MS as a partner instead of as their primary threat?

ESX 3.0 looks sweet, lots of new features. AMD, IBM, HP, and Sun have also been showing off their newest and greatest hardware for running ESX farms.

_Very_ good move by VMWare

[imemyself (757318)]

I've used VMWare(Workstation and GSX) a lot for the last couple of years. I use VMware Workstation daily on my desktop at home. I have maybe 30 or so VM's(versions of Linux, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, Netware, and OS X). I run Netware and Windows Sever in GSX on RHEL4. I couldn't live without VMware. Novell has recently started distributing some of their eval stuff via VMware images, I think Oracle has as well. I'm assuming that VMware is doing this to encourage other companies to start doing similar things. It's really a pretty neat idea, testing/learning about different OS's and software through VMware. I have also used Virtual PC, and I must say that VMware is much, much better that Virtual PC. The only think I use VPC for is to occasionally screw around in OS/2, and I'm probably going to try and install that in VMware sooner or later. I'll admit I haven't used Xen, but for me the best thing about VMware is that I can run different OS's. I don't think running Linux-on-Linux is nearly as amazing or revolutionary as running Netware-on-Linux, or Solaris-on-Windows, etc. I think that VMware Workstation 5.5(currently in beta I think, I've not tried it though), will supposely run x86_64 guests, on x86_64 hosts. VMware seems to be really moving forward a lot, each new release seems to add something that I will actually use unlike a lot of other software. I only wish they would offer updates to GSX a litte often. Right now GSX won't work with VMware Workstation 5 VM's(which support multiple snapshots). VMware Workstation 5 will run 4.5 style VM's, but you cannot use snapshots. Other than that, I can't say there's anything I don't like about VMware. And no, I don't work for them, nor am I in any way associated with them. Just a very, very, happy customer.

Re:this does what?

[bhtooefr (649901)]

Basically, have you seen how there's a QEMU image of ReactOS, and I'm sure other OSes have QEMU and Bochs images?

Well, this means that they can now use a VMWare image, and link to the VMWare Player.

VM Machine Building For Free

[nurb432 (527695)]

You can get a free 30 day license from VMware for their regular product.

Make as many VM's you want and when it expires you can still use the 'runtime' thing.

Xen is not a competitor to VMWare

[McSpew (316871)]

Sounds like they are feeling pressure from Xen and are trying to prevent the truely free OSS solution from gaining mindshare. They make a good product, but cost and closed source will limit them in the long run.

Xen is not a competitor to VMWare, at least, not right now, it isn't. Xen requires the guest OS to be built with explicit support for Xen. VMWare doesn't require that. Xen can't run any build of Windows or NetWare, but VMWare can.

It's clear that this product is a shot across Microsoft's bow. Ever since MS bought Connectix, they've been gunning for VMWare. Those who've tried both VirtualPC and VMWare Workstation have almost universally preferred VMWare Workstation (I haven't tried VirtualPC, but VMWare Workstation rocks), but VirtualPC is still cheaper than VMWare ($129 vs. $199). VMWare has also recently announced that it's hoping to standardize the virtual machine software industry around common VM file formats (VMWare's, of course). If, by using a free VMWare Player, they can get everybody else to adopt their VM formats, they'll have won that war before MS can even get into the battle.

This doesn't really cannibalize sales of VMWare Workstation, even if others figure out how to create VMWare-compatible VMs from other applications, because those of us who use VMWare Workstation like all of its features (and there are lots). What it really does is seed the market for VMWare's real money makers--GSX Server and ESX Server. MS has nothing close to those products right now, and VMWare's hoping to permanently establish themselves as the market leaders before MS can get a comparable product on the market.

Re:Xen is not a competitor to VMWare

[Turtle Master (198910)]

Xen requires the guest OS to be built with explicit support for Xen. VMWare doesn't require that. Xen can't run any build of Windows or NetWare, but VMWare can.

You haven't been paying attention. Xen will soon be able to run any build of pretty much anything on new "VT-enabled" hardware from intel. http://www.xensource.com/news/pr082305.html [xensource.com]