VMware server 2.0.1 on 12.2?

barnabyh · External Since: Aug 30, 2009 Posts: 9

I'm sure one or two people here are using it on their slack boxen, so
quick question:

To run one or the other game and have a look at Windows again after
several years I installed vmware-server-2.0.1 yesterday on a SW 12.2
install (without KDE, only xfce and gslacky-gnome). Found out it needs
pam and installed this grudgingly. Still not connecting.

Anything I am missing, apart from that Virtualbox is a more lightweight
option and may be more appropriate?

Thanks,

barnabyh

Jim Diamond · External Since: Jun 16, 2007 Posts: 14

On 2009-08-30 at 12:37 ADT, barnabyh <invalid RemoveThis @address.org> wrote:
> I'm sure one or two people here are using it on their slack boxen, so
> quick question:
>
> To run one or the other game and have a look at Windows again after
> several years I installed vmware-server-2.0.1 yesterday on a SW 12.2
> install (without KDE, only xfce and gslacky-gnome). Found out it needs
> pam and installed this grudgingly. Still not connecting.
>
> Anything I am missing, apart from that Virtualbox is a more lightweight
> option and may be more appropriate?
>
> Thanks,

barnabyh

I have 2.0.0 running. Well, OK, more stumbling than walking. As far
as I am concerned the UI for 2.0.0 is such a complete disaster that I
can't think of enough bad things to say about it. After using vmware
products for about 12 years I have now moved to vbox for most of my VM
needs, because vmware server 2.0.0 is so horrible.

Anyway, I looked around and didn't find any good notes on how I got
2.0.0 working (and that may not help you for 2.0.1 anyway).
Certainly, PAM was a bit of a problem, and one of the issues I have is
that every few seconds or minutes (it is irregular) it pops up a
window asking me to confirm some security certificate (or something
like that). I find it close to unusable. As soon as I get my
important vmware VMs converted into something vbox will read I'll
probably delete vmware server and try to forget all about it.

Having said that, since you might really want to use vmware...
(1) Are you getting the UI showing up in a firefox window?
(2) If so, are you getting anything aside from an empty window?

A few more details of what you are seeing might be useful.

Cheers.
Jim

Grant · External Since: Feb 26, 2009 Posts: 22

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:37:41 +0100, barnabyh <invalid.DeleteThis@address.org> wrote:

>I'm sure one or two people here are using it on their slack boxen, so
>quick question:
>
>To run one or the other game and have a look at Windows again after
>several years I installed vmware-server-2.0.1 yesterday on a SW 12.2
>install (without KDE, only xfce and gslacky-gnome). Found out it needs
>pam and installed this grudgingly. Still not connecting.

I prefer vmware server 1 series (1.0.8 last I looked), the 2.x UI
is fuggin hopeless. You don't need pam, just 'touch' the .conf
filename that the installer says it cannot find -- been a long
time since I ran vmware server on slack so I forget the details.

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au

barnabyh · External Since: Aug 30, 2009 Posts: 9

Jim Diamond wrote:
> On 2009-08-30 at 12:37 ADT, barnabyh <invalid.TakeThisOut@address.org> wrote:
>> I'm sure one or two people here are using it on their slack boxen, so
>> quick question:
>>
>> To run one or the other game and have a look at Windows again after
>> several years I installed vmware-server-2.0.1 yesterday on a SW 12.2
>> install (without KDE, only xfce and gslacky-gnome). Found out it needs
>> pam and installed this grudgingly. Still not connecting.
>>
>> Anything I am missing, apart from that Virtualbox is a more lightweight
>> option and may be more appropriate?
>>
>> Thanks,
>
> barnabyh
>
> I have 2.0.0 running. Well, OK, more stumbling than walking. As far
> as I am concerned the UI for 2.0.0 is such a complete disaster that I
> can't think of enough bad things to say about it. After using vmware
> products for about 12 years I have now moved to vbox for most of my VM
> needs, because vmware server 2.0.0 is so horrible.
>
> Anyway, I looked around and didn't find any good notes on how I got
> 2.0.0 working (and that may not help you for 2.0.1 anyway).
> Certainly, PAM was a bit of a problem, and one of the issues I have is
> that every few seconds or minutes (it is irregular) it pops up a
> window asking me to confirm some security certificate (or something
> like that). I find it close to unusable. As soon as I get my
> important vmware VMs converted into something vbox will read I'll
> probably delete vmware server and try to forget all about it.
>
> Having said that, since you might really want to use vmware...
> (1) Are you getting the UI showing up in a firefox window?
> (2) If so, are you getting anything aside from an empty window?
>
> A few more details of what you are seeing might be useful.
>
> Cheers.
> Jim
Hi Jim,

thanks for that. I don't get the user interface coming up, the message
is > Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 127.0.0.1:8333.

Pointing it to port 8222 doesn't work either, so my guess is it's not
running. Considering what a heavy app it is I may switch back to Vbox,
like you, not worth the hassle trying to sort it out.

The certificate issue you mentioned is cured by accepting it's unsigned
certificate or whatever the message exactly is with the browser and make
an exception.
Got the same version running fine under Debian Lenny though, so I wonder.

Take care,

barnabyh

Aaron W. Hsu · External Since: Aug 10, 2009 Posts: 15

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:57:06 -0400, barnabyh <invalid.RemoveThis@address.org> wrote:

> Thanks for that. May try the latest of series 1 then before I give up on
> it on Slackware.

I can confirm that I am running VMWare Workstation 6.5.3 and VMWare Player
2.5.3 (I think) just fine on Slackware 13. You might want to examine that
road.

Aaron W. Hsu

--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis

barnabyh · External Since: Aug 30, 2009 Posts: 9

Grant wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:37:41 +0100, barnabyh <invalid RemoveThis @address.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure one or two people here are using it on their slack boxen, so
>> quick question:
>>
>> To run one or the other game and have a look at Windows again after
>> several years I installed vmware-server-2.0.1 yesterday on a SW 12.2
>> install (without KDE, only xfce and gslacky-gnome). Found out it needs
>> pam and installed this grudgingly. Still not connecting.
>
> I prefer vmware server 1 series (1.0.8 last I looked), the 2.x UI
> is fuggin hopeless. You don't need pam, just 'touch' the .conf
> filename that the installer says it cannot find -- been a long
> time since I ran vmware server on slack so I forget the details.
>
> Grant.

Thanks for that. May try the latest of series 1 then before I give up on
it on Slackware.

barnabyh

Jim Diamond · External Since: Jun 16, 2007 Posts: 14

On 2009-08-30 at 18:48 ADT, barnabyh <invalid.DeleteThis@address.org> wrote:
> Jim Diamond wrote:
>> On 2009-08-30 at 12:37 ADT, barnabyh <invalid.DeleteThis@address.org> wrote:
>>> I'm sure one or two people here are using it on their slack boxen, so
>>> quick question:
>>>
>>> To run one or the other game and have a look at Windows again after
>>> several years I installed vmware-server-2.0.1 yesterday on a SW 12.2
>>> install (without KDE, only xfce and gslacky-gnome). Found out it needs
>>> pam and installed this grudgingly. Still not connecting.
>>>
>>> Anything I am missing, apart from that Virtualbox is a more lightweight
>>> option and may be more appropriate?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>
>> barnabyh
>>
>> I have 2.0.0 running. Well, OK, more stumbling than walking. As far
>> as I am concerned the UI for 2.0.0 is such a complete disaster that I
>> can't think of enough bad things to say about it. After using vmware
>> products for about 12 years I have now moved to vbox for most of my VM
>> needs, because vmware server 2.0.0 is so horrible.
>>
>> Anyway, I looked around and didn't find any good notes on how I got
>> 2.0.0 working (and that may not help you for 2.0.1 anyway).
>> Certainly, PAM was a bit of a problem, and one of the issues I have is
>> that every few seconds or minutes (it is irregular) it pops up a
>> window asking me to confirm some security certificate (or something
>> like that). I find it close to unusable. As soon as I get my
>> important vmware VMs converted into something vbox will read I'll
>> probably delete vmware server and try to forget all about it.
>>
>> Having said that, since you might really want to use vmware...
>> (1) Are you getting the UI showing up in a firefox window?
>> (2) If so, are you getting anything aside from an empty window?
>>
>> A few more details of what you are seeing might be useful.

> thanks for that. I don't get the user interface coming up, the message
> is > Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 127.0.0.1:8333.

The (apparently) relevant processes I have running on my system are:

19994 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/bin/vmnet-bridge -d /var/run/vmnet-bridge-0.pid -n 0 -i eth0
20005 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/bin/vmnet-dhcpd -cf /etc/vmware/vmnet1/dhcpd/dhcpd.conf -lf /etc/vmware/vmnet1/dhcpd/dhcpd.leases -pf /var/run/vmnet-dhcpd-vmnet1.pid vmnet1
20022 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/bin/vmnet-dhcpd -cf /etc/vmware/vmnet8/dhcpd/dhcpd.conf -lf /etc/vmware/vmnet8/dhcpd/dhcpd.leases -pf /var/run/vmnet-dhcpd-vmnet8.pid vmnet8
20027 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/bin/vmnet-natd -d /var/run/vmnet-natd-8.pid -m /var/run/vmnet-natd-8.mac -c /etc/vmware/vmnet8/nat/nat.conf
20293 pts/0 S 0:00 /bin/sh /usr/bin/vmware-watchdog -s webAccess -u 30 -q 5 /usr/lib/vmware/webAccess/java/jre1.5.0_15/bin/webAccess -client -Xmx64m -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=
20302 ? Ssl 0:03 \_ /usr/lib/vmware/webAccess/java/jre1.5.0_15/bin/webAccess -client -Xmx64m -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=30 -XX:MaxHeapFreeRatio=30 -Djava.util.logging.manage
20303 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/sbin/vmware-authdlauncher
20403 ? Ssl 0:02 /usr/lib/vmware/bin/vmware-hostd -a -d -u /etc/vmware/hostd/config.xml
20477 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/bin/vmnet-netifup -d /var/run/vmnet-netifup-vmnet1.pid /dev/vmnet1 vmnet1
20485 ? Ss 0:00 /usr/bin/vmnet-netifup -d /var/run/vmnet-netifup-vmnet8.pid /dev/vmnet8 vmnet8

vmware-hostd is the one listening on port 8333.

> Pointing it to port 8222 doesn't work either, so my guess is it's not
> running. Considering what a heavy app it is I may switch back to Vbox,
> like you, not worth the hassle trying to sort it out.

> The certificate issue you mentioned is cured by accepting it's unsigned
> certificate or whatever the message exactly is with the browser and make
> an exception.
Hmmm... I don't have that opportunity at this point. Maybe I screwed
up by creating a certificate in the first place. Why it feels the
need to ask me about this 500 times an hour is unclear to me.

> Got the same version running fine under Debian Lenny though, so I wonder.
Hmmm... well, there's hope.

(Although I don't see how I could use the word "fine" with the firefox UI.)

Cheers.
Jim

Douglas Mayne · External Since: Feb 13, 2006 Posts: 282

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:37:41 +0100, barnabyh wrote:

> I'm sure one or two people here are using it on their slack boxen, so
> quick question:
>
> To run one or the other game and have a look at Windows again after
> several years I installed vmware-server-2.0.1 yesterday on a SW 12.2
> install (without KDE, only xfce and gslacky-gnome). Found out it needs
> pam and installed this grudgingly. Still not connecting.
>
> Anything I am missing, apart from that Virtualbox is a more lightweight
> option and may be more appropriate?
>
> Thanks,
>
> barnabyh
>
Did you compile the kernel modules? IIRC, an "any-any" patch is required
for kernels in the 2.6.29.x and above. However, when I tried about a week
ago on Slackware 12.2 with a self compiled 2.6.30.5 kernel, I experienced
hard crashes- it locked up the OS entirely. At that point, I decided to
wait for VM server 2.0.2. My crashes may be related to a gigabit
network interface card which is using the R8169 module. However, this is
still too flaky for a production environment, IMO. For now, I will
stick with the VM server using the 1.0.x version. I do want to upgrade as
soon as possible, but it has to show that it is not going to fail me
first! I really hope that a new server version is "on the doorstep" next
week to continue testing.

In the mean time, I have another setup which is setup with Slackware 12.0
and kernel 2.6.30.5. I upgraded VMWare player 2.5.3 last week and that
is working without crashes.

FWIW, UI also investigated Sun's Virtual Box. The thing I didn't like is
that it is pretty much insisting on newer CPU's VT instruction set. I have
some dual Pentium III boxes, which are not quite ready for the recycle
heap. VirtualBox assumes that they are obsolete.

--
Douglas Mayne

barnabyh · External Since: Aug 30, 2009 Posts: 9

Jim Diamond wrote:

> Hmmm... I don't have that opportunity at this point. Maybe I screwed
> up by creating a certificate in the first place. Why it feels the
> need to ask me about this 500 times an hour is unclear to me.
>

It should've only asked you once. There's quite a nice tutorial here for
vmware 1, http://www.howtoforge.com/the_perfect_desktop_slackware12_p9,
installing vmware 2 is only covered in some newer write-ups for other
dictributions.
It's similar, but obviously not enough for me to work this time!

> (Although I don't see how I could use the word "fine" with the firefox UI.)

Have been trying Google-chrome now for a few days, nice minimalist
interface.

Have a good one,

barnabyh

barnabyh · External Since: Aug 30, 2009 Posts: 9

Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:57:06 -0400, barnabyh <invalid DeleteThis @address.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that. May try the latest of series 1 then before I give up
>> on it on Slackware.
>
> I can confirm that I am running VMWare Workstation 6.5.3 and VMWare
> Player 2.5.3 (I think) just fine on Slackware 13. You might want to
> examine that road.
>
> Aaron W. Hsu
>

That's an idea. Will try that if the Player is still free.

barnabyh

barnabyh · External Since: Aug 30, 2009 Posts: 9

Douglas Mayne wrote:

> Did you compile the kernel modules? IIRC, an "any-any" patch is required
> for kernels in the 2.6.29.x and above.

I did compile the kernel modules and a message in the output stated they
"installed perfectly". Using the latest official kernel for 12.2, 2.6.27.31.

>
> In the mean time, I have another setup which is setup with Slackware 12.0
> and kernel 2.6.30.5. I upgraded VMWare player 2.5.3 last week and that
> is working without crashes.
>
> FWIW, UI also investigated Sun's Virtual Box. The thing I didn't like is
> that it is pretty much insisting on newer CPU's VT instruction set. I have
> some dual Pentium III boxes, which are not quite ready for the recycle
> heap. VirtualBox assumes that they are obsolete.
>

I'll investigate vmware-player. You're right about Vbox really pushing
it, another thing is that the latest 3.0.x point releases insist on qt4.
I also do not like the newer interface and much prefer the 2 series, but
that's probably like everything, needs getting used to.
Just not quite clear why software-makers have to keep changing the
interfaces. Change for the sake of change, or maybe different people now
in the team etc. In any case, neither good nor necessary I believe.

Have a good one,

barnabyh

barnabyh · External Since: Aug 30, 2009 Posts: 9

barnabyh wrote:
> Douglas Mayne wrote:
>
>> Did you compile the kernel modules? IIRC, an "any-any" patch is required
>> for kernels in the 2.6.29.x and above.
>
> I did compile the kernel modules and a message in the output stated they
> "installed perfectly". Using the latest official kernel for 12.2,
> 2.6.27.31.
>
>>
>> In the mean time, I have another setup which is setup with Slackware 12.0
>> and kernel 2.6.30.5. I upgraded VMWare player 2.5.3 last week and that
>> is working without crashes.
>> FWIW, UI also investigated Sun's Virtual Box. The thing I didn't like is
>> that it is pretty much insisting on newer CPU's VT instruction set. I
>> have
>> some dual Pentium III boxes, which are not quite ready for the recycle
>> heap. VirtualBox assumes that they are obsolete.
>
> I'll investigate vmware-player. You're right about Vbox really pushing
> it, another thing is that the latest 3.0.x point releases insist on qt4.
> I also do not like the newer interface and much prefer the 2 series, but
> that's probably like everything, needs getting used to.
> Just not quite clear why software-makers have to keep changing the
> interfaces. Change for the sake of change, or maybe different people now
> in the team etc. In any case, neither good nor necessary I believe.
>
> Have a good one,
>
> barnabyh

Forgot, qemu might be an option, I've never used it apart from playing
around with it a couple o' years ago, but it may be enough for running
Win98 or FreeDOS for a few old games.

barnaby

Douglas Mayne · External Since: Feb 13, 2006 Posts: 282

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:30:33 +0100, barnabyh wrote:

> Douglas Mayne wrote:
>
>> Did you compile the kernel modules? IIRC, an "any-any" patch is required
>> for kernels in the 2.6.29.x and above.
>
> I did compile the kernel modules and a message in the output stated they
> "installed perfectly". Using the latest official kernel for 12.2, 2.6.27.31.
>
<snip>
>
In that case, your problem may be something to do with the browser
interface. IIRC, I also had some issues where the UI won't display. Try
deleting the certificate and opening this URL:

http://localhost:8222

Then retrieve and accept the certificate again.

Another option is to try at a remote hosts:

http://yourbox:8222

--
Douglas Mayne

Jim Diamond · External Since: Jun 16, 2007 Posts: 14

On 2009-08-30 at 22:48 ADT, barnabyh <invalid DeleteThis @address.org> wrote:
> Jim Diamond wrote:
>
>> (Although I don't see how I could use the word "fine" with the firefox UI.)
> Have been trying Google-chrome now for a few days, nice minimalist
> interface.
Just to clarify... I meant the VMware interface implemented inside firefox.

Jim