From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 31 15:14:53 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85073106568B for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:14:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stanb@panix.com) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560388FC0C for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:14:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73841F0A2 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from teddy.fas.com (c-76-26-200-187.hsd1.sc.comcast.net [76.26.200.187]) by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E58530087 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from stan by teddy.fas.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1N4FfI-00069T-00 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:14:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:14:52 -0500 From: stan To: Free BSD Questions list Message-ID: <20091031151452.GB23459@teddy.fas.com> Mail-Followup-To: Free BSD Questions list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Editor: gVim X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux X-Kernel-Version: 2.4.23 X-Uptime: 10:08:10 up 31 days, 17:21, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.05 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: Stan Brown Subject: What VM does FreeBSD run well under X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:14:53 -0000 I am planing on rebuilding my laptop shortly. I am going to put Ubuntu 9.10 on as the base OS, and I want to be able to run various versions of FreebSD as guest OS'es under one of the free (EG not VMWare) virtual machine choices. Which of these does FreebSD run well under? -- One of the main causes of the fall of the roman empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.