UserModeLinux ?

peter.wood at peter.wood at
Thu Oct 12 08:37:49 PDT 2000

On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 06:36:17PM -0400, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I do not recall seeing user-mode-linux (uml) mentioned in the list.  If I
> > am wrong, please correct me.  I bring it up because it is potentially very
> > useful for building and testing (not only kernels).  I have tried running a
> > "clone" of my lfs system inside my regular system, and it works like a
> > charm (although I have not got networking between virtual and real machine
> > working _yet_).
> >
> > Uml makes it possible to build (and boot) linux systems _without_:
> >
> > 1) rebooting the real machine
> > 2) partitioning the hard disk
> >
> > It would be very convenient for testing new packages/scripts/startup.  What
> > do you think?
> I use vmware for such purposes and am quite happy with it... how does uml 
> differ from vmware?


Apart from the $$$$, uml is free, as in speech.  In fact it is "just" a patch.
Host kernels after 2.2.15 do not need to be patched to run a uml virtual
machine, so you just have to patch the kernel you are going to run as a client.
I am running 2.2.4t9 inside my lfs 2.2.16, on an lfs file system.

I have not used vmware, so I can't tell what else is different.  I have just
finished compiling a kernel inside the virtual machine, and it went fine.  At
the moment, I'm compiling gcc.

BTW, Gerard.  In one of yr mails on this thread you say vmware won't work after
you started using 2.2.4 ...

"now that I run a 2.4 kernel, vmware doens't work anymore..."

so how does "quite happy with it" fit in there?  I don't want to start an
ideology war, but in general, I think Linux users should favour free software,
if possible.  

Just finished compiling gcc and everything looks fine.  No errors at least!  

uml is cool.


Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list