Professional Web Applications Themes

Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch? - Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Vmware 2.0.4 upgrade? I've got vmware 2.0.3, haven't used it in awhile (hardly every need windoze) and have upgraded kernels a number of times, now can't get it to generate a new module, and trying to download the binary modules from VMware.com just pukes because I don't have 2.0.4. And, of course, VMware no longer supports the 2.x series. I haven't the slightest interest in paying for an upgrade to a later version, which is what they want you to do. Or does anyone just have a vmware module ...

  1. #1

    Default Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Vmware 2.0.4 upgrade? I've got
    vmware 2.0.3, haven't used it in awhile (hardly every need windoze) and have
    upgraded kernels a number of times, now can't get it to generate a new
    module, and trying to download the binary modules from VMware.com just pukes
    because I don't have 2.0.4. And, of course, VMware no longer supports the
    2.x series.
    I haven't the slightest interest in paying for an upgrade to a later
    version, which is what they want you to do. Or does anyone just have a
    vmware module for the 2.4.22 kernel??

    hseaver@nospamcybershamanix.com Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:18:47 +0000, hseave wrote:
     

    Have you considered switching to Win4Lin? Win4Lin is reasonably priced and
    the kernel patch has remained compatible with all of their releases.
    General Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:18:47 +0000, hseaver typed:
     

    Warning!!! You must have a valid license (already installed) to use these
    versions; ftp://download1.vmware.com/pub/software/

    You should also download/install vmware-any-any-update43.tar.gz before
    attempting to use VMware with kernel 2.4.22; http://ftp.cvut.cz/vmware/



    --
    SCO + RICO Act = Justice

    Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Copy me to your .sig!

    Lenard Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    In comp.os.linux.setup General Schvantzkoph <com> wrote: 
     [/ref]
     

    I'm really not interested in spending even one cent more to run windoze.
    I've got a paid for copy of vmware, why shouldn't I be able to use it?

    hseaver@nospamcybershamanix.com Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 20:36:48 GMT, com wrote:
     
    >
    > I'm really not interested in spending even one cent more to run windoze.
    > I've got a paid for copy of vmware, why shouldn't I be able to use it?[/ref]

    .... but you cant always expect that 'unsupported software' to
    work with modern/upgrade software/OS's. however, maybe someone
    can drum up a fix for ya!
    ..
    --
    /// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
    \\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
    "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
    mjt Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    com wrote: 
    .... 
    >
    >
    > I'm really not interested in spending even one cent more to run windoze.
    > I've got a paid for copy of vmware, why shouldn't I be able to use it?
    >[/ref]

    No. YOU paid for a copy of vmware, then YOU chose to upgrade YOUR
    platform to an UNSUPPORTED level. Then, YOU decided that vmware was
    not worth YOUR money to get support for YOUR new Linux kernel level....

    Answer: use the vmware you have on the kernel levels it supported.... or
    consider supporting vmware by upgrading to a later version (about $100
    or so I believe).

    Can YOU use vmware? Yes... but YOU are not willing to live within
    the restrictions of the version you bought. Isn't commercial
    software fun!!



    Chris Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:16:10 -0600, Chris Cox <net> wrote:
     

    .... aaaah, NO :)
    ..
    --
    /// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
    \\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
    A bird in the bush usually has a friend in there with him.
    mjt Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

     

    vmware web page says:
     


    http://www.vmware.com/products/desktop/guarantee.html

    Does windows have a similar problem?

    b

    H Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    In comp.os.linux.misc H Brett Bolen <rr.com> wrote:

    :> Answer: use the vmware you have on the kernel levels it supported.... or
    :> consider supporting vmware by upgrading to a later version (about $100
    :> or so I believe).

    : vmware web page says:

    :> Customers who have a Workstation 2.x license must purchase a full license of
    : > Workstation 4 in order to upgrade to Workstation 4. We do not have an upgrade
    : > path for upgrading directly from Workstation 2.x to Workstation 4. Please note
    :> that by (a) purchasing an upgrade from Workstation 2.x to Workstation 3.2, (b)
    :> installing Workstation 3.2, and (c) then purchasing an upgrade from Workstation
    :> 3.2 to Workstation 4, you save money over buying a full license of Workstation 4.

    Yuck.


    : http://www.vmware.com/products/desktop/guarantee.html

    "no page found" on my system

    : Does windows have a similar problem?

    You have to go WAY back (mid 90's) to find a version of Windows
    that can't be directly upgraded to latest/greatest. No hopping
    like that described above, which sounds pretty ugly.

    I'd add that I haven't yet figured out why I would want VMWare
    in the first place. For the same or less $ I can get a real PC
    with better performance and much fewer limitations.

    Stan

    --
    Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
    www.worldbadminton.com
    nobody@nowhere.com Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    com wrote: 

    FWIW, hera are a few of the reasons why I chose VMWare over another PC
    (note I'm not the OP in this thread; his reasons probably differ):

    1) Another PC uses more electricity, and generates more heat and noise
    than running VMWare.

    2) Another PC adds to the cable clutter under my desk.

    But the big reason is:

    3) With VMWare you can run multiple, independent "virtual" PCs
    simultaneously. I'd need half a dozen (or more) real PCs if I wanted to
    run multiple versions of Windows and Linux (and other x86 operating
    systems) simultaneously. That would make points 1 & 2 even bigger
    drawbacks.
    John-Paul Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    H Brett Bolen wrote: 
    >
    >
    > vmware web page says:
    > [/ref]

    Boy.. commercial software couldn't get any better than this!!

    If VMware is smart they'll GPL the whole thing before
    Microsoft squashes them like a gnat (and that's DEFINITELY
    going to happen btw).

    Chris Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    John-Paul Stewart wrote:
    .... 

    Yep.. anti-commercial software rhetoric aside... I own two
    FULL licenses myself and have paid for upgrades. I was an
    original .9 beta customer myself... the product is simply
    awesome. But alas, I really, really do believe that Microsoft
    will squash VMware sometime this year... and all of their
    technology will be lost forever.

    There will be many, many things that I do now that will
    be VERY difficult to do without VMware (for most, I think
    they'd say impossible... but I'm an optimist). VMware needs
    to GPL now before it's too late (you can bet that M$ is
    striving to kill them quickly before they do something like
    GPL it).



    Chris Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Chris Cox <net> wrote:

    : Boy.. commercial software couldn't get any better than this!!

    : If VMware is smart they'll GPL the whole thing before
    : Microsoft squashes them like a gnat (and that's DEFINITELY
    : going to happen btw).

    Yep. Initial cost of the MS VMWare equivalent costs about 1/3
    of what VMWare charges. Soon to be released.

    GPL'd VMWare would be very interesting

    Stan

    --
    Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
    www.worldbadminton.com
    nobody@nowhere.com Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    Chris Cox wrote: 

    Have you seen the plex86 and/or bochs projects? IIRC, it is plex86 that
    was originally named "FreeMWare". Last time I looked it wasn't up to
    VMWare quality, but I hear there are those who use it for the same sorts
    of tasks. Of course it is GPLed.
    John-Paul Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    In <borafr$airnews.net>, Chris Cox:

    [Snip...]
     

    Maybe I misunderstand you, but GPL won't spare VMWare in this regard. From

    http://story.news./news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20031110/bs_nf/22660

    we read in part:

    Virtual PC 2004 has been shipped to manufacturers and should be
    commercially available by the end of the year. Key components come
    from virtual machine specialist Connectix, a company purchased by
    Microsoft last February.

    VMWare could go the way of Netscape and Mozilla; Redmond calls that process
    "innovation" (heard that before have you?). It thus effectively neutralizes
    (legally or not) another competitor, and "stardardizes" more technology.

    (Still, Apache, Sendmail, and Mozilla thrive--some upside to all this)

    --

    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (mklog*) in place for spambots.
    Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.

    #Harold Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    At earth time Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:29:13 -0500, the following transmission
    was received from the entity known as John-Paul Stewart:
     
    >
    > Have you seen the plex86 and/or bochs projects? IIRC, it is plex86 that
    > was originally named "FreeMWare". Last time I looked it wasn't up to
    > VMWare quality, but I hear there are those who use it for the same sorts
    > of tasks. Of course it is GPLed.[/ref]

    I tried running win98 under bochs - it worked but was incredibly slow.
    Apparently they're working on making some of the guest system run natively
    when using an x86 processor, which is how VMWare does it faster, but it's
    not finished yet.

    andy.

    --
    remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
    bin unless notified with [html] or [attachment] in the subject line.
    Andy Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:18:33 +0000, nobod wrote:
     

    The M$ virtual machine isn't going to run on top of Linux, the host OS is
    going to be Windows only. If you want to run a *nix environment on Windows
    you can use Cygwin which is free.

    General Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    #Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293 wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Maybe I misunderstand you, but GPL won't spare VMWare in this regard. From
    >
    > http://story.news./news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20031110/bs_nf/22660
    >
    > we read in part:
    >
    > Virtual PC 2004 has been shipped to manufacturers and should be
    > commercially available by the end of the year. Key components come
    > from virtual machine specialist Connectix, a company purchased by
    > Microsoft last February.
    >
    > VMWare could go the way of Netscape and Mozilla;[/ref]

    Given that Mozilla is alive, well and growing... what point are you
    trying to make? Microsoft's marketshare does not increase by
    choice but by force. Something that Microsoft is painfully aware
    of... which is why they're sending Mr. Ballmer all over creation
    to say absolutely stupid things (I would say that MS will replace
    him, but MS hasn't done anything over the past 5 years based
    on good business sense). The world can save billions of dollars
    per year simply by switching away from MSIE and Outlook on the
    client side... though grandma and gandpa aren't likely to
    switch (why they are on the computer is somewhat a mystery anyway),
    big decision makers will be making the switch just to alleviate
    the high costs of downtime and virus clean up caused by those
    two elements on the desktop.
     

    GPL is the best way to protect technology and keep it from going away.

    VMware, now that MS has made it's acquisition choice, has nothing
    to do with Connectix and competition, etc... MS will kill VMware
    using whatever means necessary (whatever means necessary!). MS did
    not purchase Connetix to compete against VMware.. their plan is
    the immediate destruction of VMware... and as I said, if I were VMware,
    I'd do a little "scorched earth" style tactic while they are still
    alive. Time is running out.

    Chris Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    In <bouhh4$airnews.net>, Chris Cox:

    [Snip...]
     

    You snipped it:
     [/ref]

    In short, VMWare may disappear, but not its Open Source possibilities.

    Open Source will decide if it's worthwhile, no matter what Redmond does.

    [Snip...]
     

    Who knows; maybe they're negotiating with Red Flag Linux for a buyout?

    Just because they bug Unca Bill doesn't mean the Fat Lady's singing. If
    that was always so, Apple Computer and Red Hat would have been roadkill
    years ago.

    --

    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (mklog*) in place for spambots.
    Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.

    #Harold Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Vmware 2.04 upgrade patch?

    #Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293 wrote: 
    >
    >
    > You snipped it:
    >
    > [/ref][/ref]

    :-) Hardly explains your intial comments though... in fact it's
    out of place. You said that VMware was going "the way of
    Mozilla and Netscape".
     

    There are NO open source versions of VMware and it's unlikely
    that plex86 will have anything close to VMware for at least 2-3 years
    (optimistically).
     

    I suppose.. but what if it takes 5-10 years to get plex86 to VMware
    worthiness?? Probably won't matter at all by then since we'll
    all be without VMware for that period of time (shoot, can we afford
    to be without it for 1 year?? Probably not.)....

     
    >
    >
    > Who knows; maybe they're negotiating with Red Flag Linux for a buyout?[/ref]

    GPL having nothing to do with being 0wned by Red Flag or other.
    Knowing VMware fairly intimately, I would say they are sitting on
    their laurels.. they'd welcome a M$ buyout... they don't understand
    that M$ will obliterate their technology (depending on the amount of
    the buyout, they might not really care anyway).
     

    I really do not think you have very good insight into Mr. Bill's head.
    We'll see... but I know I'm right :-) VMware works. Most Windoze
    users use it to play with Linux and other NON-M$ OS's. Linux users,
    use it for running Windoze apps. Those two reasons alone make it necessary
    for M$ to eliminate it permanently.

    Chris Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FMS2 and VMWare
    By cfschroe in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 4th, 02:35 PM
  2. Coldfusion on VMWare
    By rambo in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 1st, 02:43 PM
  3. VMWARE
    By jim in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 11th, 06:54 PM
  4. No AcroPro.msi for 6.01 Upgrade Patch
    By caldwellws@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Windows
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 1st, 02:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139