Run Foxpro 2.6 for DOS and Foxpro 2.6 for Windows on 64-bit Windows?

[Malcolm Greene]

Short of creating a 32-bit VM, is there any way I can run FoxPro
2.6 for DOS or FoxPro 2.6 for Windows applications on a 64 bit
version of Windows Vista or Windows 7 Professional?

Is there a tool like TameDOS that would enable us to run these
applications on newer hardware?

Thanks,
Malcolm


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---

[Bill Arnold]

Post by Malcolm Greene
Short of creating a 32-bit VM, is there any way I can run FoxPro
2.6 for DOS or FoxPro 2.6 for Windows applications on a 64 bit
version of Windows Vista or Windows 7 Professional?
Is there a tool like TameDOS that would enable us to run these
applications on newer hardware?

I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind up running VM
anyway.

No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact that it requires a
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine vulnerable to
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some point. I know
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't require a host).


Bill

Post by Malcolm Greene
Thanks,
Malcolm

[Paul McNett]

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Malcolm Greene
Short of creating a 32-bit VM, is there any way I can run FoxPro
2.6 for DOS or FoxPro 2.6 for Windows applications on a 64 bit
version of Windows Vista or Windows 7 Professional?
Is there a tool like TameDOS that would enable us to run these
applications on newer hardware?

I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind up running VM
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact that it requires a
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine vulnerable to
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some point. I know
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't require a host).

You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.

Paul

[Bill Arnold]

Paul,

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold
I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind

up running VM

Post by Bill Arnold
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact

that it requires a

Post by Bill Arnold
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine

vulnerable to

Post by Bill Arnold
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some

point. I know

Post by Bill Arnold
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't

require a host).
You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running
DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.

That's good to know. What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's
the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's.

Besides using it for testing apps with different releases, my expectation is
that it would provide complete protection for the OS from attacks, because
virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched.

It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel?


Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul

[excessive quoting removed by server]

[Pete Theisen]

Post by Bill Arnold
What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's
the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's.
Besides using it for testing apps with different releases, my expectation is
that it would provide complete protection for the OS from attacks, because
virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched.
It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel?

Hi Bill,

Yes, the untouchable machine would be nice. Rootkits rolling right off
of the VM's back. I would want one like that.

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

You might give Xen a try. You can download the live CD
using the link below. I'm downloading the Xen live CD
myself, to see how it might help me.

http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/LiveCD

Regards,

LelandJ

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul,

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold
I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind

up running VM

Post by Bill Arnold
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact

that it requires a

Post by Bill Arnold
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine

vulnerable to

Post by Bill Arnold
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some

point. I know

Post by Bill Arnold
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't

require a host).
You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running
DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.

That's good to know. What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's
the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's.
Besides using it for testing apps with different releases, my expectation is
that it would provide complete protection for the OS from attacks, because
virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched.
It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel?
Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul

[excessive quoting removed by server]

[Bill Arnold]

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
You might give Xen a try. You can download the live CD
using the link below. I'm downloading the Xen live CD
myself, to see how it might help me.
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/LiveCD

That is interesting, Leland. Guess there's no question as to the doability.
They say they cover the "any OS" part pretty clearly, and it is a native OS
without a host.

What I don't see is any mention of security from attacks, which I'd think
would be a heralded feature of such a VM.

I'm too booked to take on another project now, but I am following this
subject with great interest for the longer term.


Bill

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
Regards,
LelandJ

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Below is an excerpt of the Xen FAQ and the link:

#----------------------

Q: How does Xen differ from other virtualization technologies?
A: Unlike other virtualization technologies, only Xen is
entirely open source. This brings a number of benefits over
proprietary solutions, including improved functionality,
better performance, and greater extendibility. Xen is
without doubt the highest performing hypervisor in the
industry – with typically 10x less overhead than competitive
proprietary offerings. Xen’s unique performance benefits
accrue from its pioneering and industry leading
paravirtualization technology, which allows hosted virtual
servers to collaborate with the hypervisor to achieve the
best performance for enterprise applications.

Xen also optimally uses the hardware virtualization
capabilities of Intel’s VT and AMD’s Pacifica processors.
Unlike other proprietary hypervisors which rely on dated,
software-only virtualization, Xen is the industry’s first
supported software base for Intel VT. Xen runs unmodified
guests such as Windows, on “the bare metal” at native
processor speed on Intel VT enabled hardware.
Paravirtualization in this case provides I/O performance
that Intel VT cannot provide, while still using the best in
hardware support for accelerated performance of
virtualization. Finally, since Xen has no product fee, it
results in a much lower total cost of ownership.

http://staging.xen.org/about/faq.html

#----------------------------

Regards,

LelandJ

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul,

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold
I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind

up running VM

Post by Bill Arnold
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact

that it requires a

Post by Bill Arnold
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine

vulnerable to

Post by Bill Arnold
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some

point. I know

Post by Bill Arnold
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't

require a host).
You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running
DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.

That's good to know. What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's
the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's.
Besides using it for testing apps with different releases, my expectation is
that it would provide complete protection for the OS from attacks, because
virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched.
It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel?
Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul

[excessive quoting removed by server]

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

I downloaded the Xen iso and burned it into a DVD. The size
of the iso was about 698 megs. I booted the DVD and
selected the X86 OS version from the grub menu, which
brought up a Linux OS with a Debian icon. The Xen gui
automatically opened in the Debian desktop. I then opened
a Ubuntu guest using the Xen gui VM manager, and it worked
OK. I'll have to set aside some additional time to explore
it further.

The below excerpt regarding security is from the Xen FAQs:

#----------------------


Q: What is the Xen approach to security?
A: Xen supports absolute resource isolation between domains
meaning it has the highest level of separation and security
possible in i386 class hardware. You won't, for example, be
able to tcpdump on a virtual host and see traffic intended
for other virtual hosts. Additionally, Xen’s code base is
very small – under 50,000 lines for the core hypervisor.
This allows the security community to verify its security
continually. More importantly, Xen can use hardware security
capabilities, such as Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs) to
build a layer of attestation and trust up from the hardware,
through the software. XenSource demonstrated a secure
hypervisor at Intel Developer Forum in August 2005. The
secure solution is an integration of the Xen hypervisor with
the market leading open source Snort Intrusion Detection
System. By embedding security capabilities into the
hypervisor, users receive a powerful new ability to
implement the same security policies across the virtualized
enterprise, independent of the operating system. Moreover,
the hypervisor can ensure that even legacy guests that have
not been patched will be protected. Xen can even prevent a
compromised virtual machine from attacking other virtual or
physical servers in the enterprise by blocking its network
traffic.

Finally, XenSource, IBM and Intel are collaborating on a
project to deliver a key security capability using Xen.
So-called multi-layer secure systems (MLS) allow the
hypervisor and its security to be independently managed,
monitored and controlled from that of the guests –
effectively providing yet another layer of independent
security, outside the guest operating system.

http://staging.xen.org/about/faq.html

#--------------------

Regards,

LelandJ

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
#----------------------
Q: How does Xen differ from other virtualization technologies?
A: Unlike other virtualization technologies, only Xen is
entirely open source. This brings a number of benefits over
proprietary solutions, including improved functionality,
better performance, and greater extendibility. Xen is
without doubt the highest performing hypervisor in the
industry – with typically 10x less overhead than competitive
proprietary offerings. Xen’s unique performance benefits
accrue from its pioneering and industry leading
paravirtualization technology, which allows hosted virtual
servers to collaborate with the hypervisor to achieve the
best performance for enterprise applications.
Xen also optimally uses the hardware virtualization
capabilities of Intel’s VT and AMD’s Pacifica processors.
Unlike other proprietary hypervisors which rely on dated,
software-only virtualization, Xen is the industry’s first
supported software base for Intel VT. Xen runs unmodified
guests such as Windows, on “the bare metal” at native
processor speed on Intel VT enabled hardware.
Paravirtualization in this case provides I/O performance
that Intel VT cannot provide, while still using the best in
hardware support for accelerated performance of
virtualization. Finally, since Xen has no product fee, it
results in a much lower total cost of ownership.
http://staging.xen.org/about/faq.html
#----------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul,

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold
I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind

up running VM

Post by Bill Arnold
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact

that it requires a

Post by Bill Arnold
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine

vulnerable to

Post by Bill Arnold
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some

point. I know

Post by Bill Arnold
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't

require a host).
You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running
DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.

That's good to know. What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's
the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's.
Besides using it for testing apps with different releases, my expectation is
that it would provide complete protection for the OS from attacks, because
virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched.
It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel?
Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul

[excessive quoting removed by server]

[Bill Arnold]

Leland,

Thanks for the info.

Sounds good, but can't say I'm convinced on the security part. I'm looking
for really assuring words like "it's impossible to break into" or "the jig
is up for the attackers".

I'm imagining a VM OS that can't be changed unless the system is booted in
"maintenance mode", but otherwise the software is frozen and can't be
changed during regular operations, period. Sort of a semi burned-into-a-chip
hardware solution, but one where we get maintainable software that also
can't be touched by an attacker.


Bill

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
I downloaded the Xen iso and burned it into a DVD. The size
of the iso was about 698 megs. I booted the DVD and
selected the X86 OS version from the grub menu, which
brought up a Linux OS with a Debian icon. The Xen gui
automatically opened in the Debian desktop. I then opened
a Ubuntu guest using the Xen gui VM manager, and it worked
OK. I'll have to set aside some additional time to explore
it further.
#----------------------
Q: What is the Xen approach to security?
A: Xen supports absolute resource isolation between domains
meaning it has the highest level of separation and security
possible in i386 class hardware. You won't, for example, be
able to tcpdump on a virtual host and see traffic intended
for other virtual hosts. Additionally, Xen's code base is
very small - under 50,000 lines for the core hypervisor.
This allows the security community to verify its security
continually. More importantly, Xen can use hardware security
capabilities, such as Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs) to
build a layer of attestation and trust up from the hardware,
through the software. XenSource demonstrated a secure
hypervisor at Intel Developer Forum in August 2005. The
secure solution is an integration of the Xen hypervisor with
the market leading open source Snort Intrusion Detection
System. By embedding security capabilities into the
hypervisor, users receive a powerful new ability to
implement the same security policies across the virtualized
enterprise, independent of the operating system. Moreover,
the hypervisor can ensure that even legacy guests that have
not been patched will be protected. Xen can even prevent a
compromised virtual machine from attacking other virtual or
physical servers in the enterprise by blocking its network
traffic.
Finally, XenSource, IBM and Intel are collaborating on a
project to deliver a key security capability using Xen.
So-called multi-layer secure systems (MLS) allow the
hypervisor and its security to be independently managed,
monitored and controlled from that of the guests -
effectively providing yet another layer of independent
security, outside the guest operating system.
http://staging.xen.org/about/faq.html
#--------------------
Regards,
LelandJ

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
#----------------------
Q: How does Xen differ from other virtualization technologies?
A: Unlike other virtualization technologies, only Xen is
entirely open source. This brings a number of benefits over
proprietary solutions, including improved functionality,
better performance, and greater extendibility. Xen is
without doubt the highest performing hypervisor in the
industry - with typically 10x less overhead than competitive
proprietary offerings. Xen's unique performance benefits
accrue from its pioneering and industry leading
paravirtualization technology, which allows hosted virtual
servers to collaborate with the hypervisor to achieve the
best performance for enterprise applications.
Xen also optimally uses the hardware virtualization
capabilities of Intel's VT and AMD's Pacifica processors.
Unlike other proprietary hypervisors which rely on dated,
software-only virtualization, Xen is the industry's first
supported software base for Intel VT. Xen runs unmodified
guests such as Windows, on "the bare metal" at native
processor speed on Intel VT enabled hardware.
Paravirtualization in this case provides I/O performance
that Intel VT cannot provide, while still using the best in
hardware support for accelerated performance of
virtualization. Finally, since Xen has no product fee, it
results in a much lower total cost of ownership.
http://staging.xen.org/about/faq.html
#----------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul,

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold
I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind

up running VM

Post by Bill Arnold
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact

that it requires a

Post by Bill Arnold
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine

vulnerable to

Post by Bill Arnold
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some

point. I know

Post by Bill Arnold
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't

require a host).
You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running
DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.

That's good to know. What I'm really wishing for is a

"real" VM where it's

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major

guest OS's.

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
Besides using it for testing apps with different releases,

my expectation is

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
that it would provide complete protection for the OS from

attacks, because

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched.
It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel?
Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul

[excessive quoting removed by server]

[Paul McNett]

Post by Bill Arnold
Sounds good, but can't say I'm convinced on the security part. I'm looking
for really assuring words like "it's impossible to break into" or "the jig
is up for the attackers".

If they made that claim, how could you trust anything they said? The only way to make
such claims would be to make a completely unusable system. Like not connected to a
network, like not even connected to a keyboard or mouse.

Paul

[Bill Arnold]

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold
Sounds good, but can't say I'm convinced on the security

part. I'm looking

Post by Bill Arnold
for really assuring words like "it's impossible to break

into" or "the jig

Post by Bill Arnold
is up for the attackers".

If they made that claim, how could you trust anything they
said? The only way to make
such claims would be to make a completely unusable system.
Like not connected to a
network, like not even connected to a keyboard or mouse.

I'm talking about the real VM OS having code that can't be changed by an
attacker. Whichever OS's the VM are virtual and disappear on reboot, so
attacks that get through to them disappear on reboot as part of the VM
proposition, but the base/real OS needs to be completely protected from
change (yet still maintainable, thus the "boot into maintenance mode" for
making changes part).

Don't mean to suggest this will solve all the security problems out there,
but I'm thinking it would be something better then paying extortion for
protection against yesterday's attacks when it's tomorrow's attacks that
matter. The industry has to get in front of this problem and out of catch-up
mode. It seems to me that VM can be helpful here, but not if itself is
vulnerable.

The bigger part of this is that police have to track these bastards down and
lock them up, otherwise they will just get better and better at what they
do. It's far easier to destroy then build, so they have a leg up to start
with.


Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

I took a look at Xen on Fedora a few years ago. I decided
against it at that time; because, Zen if patched right into
the kernel This kind of frooze me into the kernel that
contained Zen. As you may know, the regular Xen patched
kernel, and I no longer received regular kernel updates. I
always like being able to run the latest Fedora kernel.

However, having the application that handles VM patched
right into the kernel helps security; since, the kernel must
exits in memory in its entirity in order to run. If you
couple that with additional security provided by
applications like SELinux, that does not allow writing to
memory or OS files, and you have pretty good security.

A couple of year ago I could get a kernel with Xen from the
update feature in fedora, but that ended in version 8 of
Fedora, I believe. Hopefully, it will return with version
12 of Fedora.

It may be possible to run Xen in Fedora by using the
provided tarballs from the Zen website, but I don't know
what would be involved with that, and it might get a little
hairy.

When it come to security, there are no absolutely, 100%
secure computers. LOL

http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/Installing_and_Configuring_Fedora_Xen_Virtualization

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8540

Regards,

LelandJ

Post by Bill Arnold
Leland,
Thanks for the info.
Sounds good, but can't say I'm convinced on the security part. I'm looking
for really assuring words like "it's impossible to break into" or "the jig
is up for the attackers".
I'm imagining a VM OS that can't be changed unless the system is booted in
"maintenance mode", but otherwise the software is frozen and can't be
changed during regular operations, period. Sort of a semi burned-into-a-chip
hardware solution, but one where we get maintainable software that also
can't be touched by an attacker.
Bill

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
I downloaded the Xen iso and burned it into a DVD. The size
of the iso was about 698 megs. I booted the DVD and
selected the X86 OS version from the grub menu, which
brought up a Linux OS with a Debian icon. The Xen gui
automatically opened in the Debian desktop. I then opened
a Ubuntu guest using the Xen gui VM manager, and it worked
OK. I'll have to set aside some additional time to explore
it further.
#----------------------
Q: What is the Xen approach to security?
A: Xen supports absolute resource isolation between domains
meaning it has the highest level of separation and security
possible in i386 class hardware. You won't, for example, be
able to tcpdump on a virtual host and see traffic intended
for other virtual hosts. Additionally, Xen's code base is
very small - under 50,000 lines for the core hypervisor.
This allows the security community to verify its security
continually. More importantly, Xen can use hardware security
capabilities, such as Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs) to
build a layer of attestation and trust up from the hardware,
through the software. XenSource demonstrated a secure
hypervisor at Intel Developer Forum in August 2005. The
secure solution is an integration of the Xen hypervisor with
the market leading open source Snort Intrusion Detection
System. By embedding security capabilities into the
hypervisor, users receive a powerful new ability to
implement the same security policies across the virtualized
enterprise, independent of the operating system. Moreover,
the hypervisor can ensure that even legacy guests that have
not been patched will be protected. Xen can even prevent a
compromised virtual machine from attacking other virtual or
physical servers in the enterprise by blocking its network
traffic.
Finally, XenSource, IBM and Intel are collaborating on a
project to deliver a key security capability using Xen.
So-called multi-layer secure systems (MLS) allow the
hypervisor and its security to be independently managed,
monitored and controlled from that of the guests -
effectively providing yet another layer of independent
security, outside the guest operating system.
http://staging.xen.org/about/faq.html
#--------------------
Regards,
LelandJ

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
#----------------------
Q: How does Xen differ from other virtualization technologies?
A: Unlike other virtualization technologies, only Xen is
entirely open source. This brings a number of benefits over
proprietary solutions, including improved functionality,
better performance, and greater extendibility. Xen is
without doubt the highest performing hypervisor in the
industry - with typically 10x less overhead than competitive
proprietary offerings. Xen's unique performance benefits
accrue from its pioneering and industry leading
paravirtualization technology, which allows hosted virtual
servers to collaborate with the hypervisor to achieve the
best performance for enterprise applications.
Xen also optimally uses the hardware virtualization
capabilities of Intel's VT and AMD's Pacifica processors.
Unlike other proprietary hypervisors which rely on dated,
software-only virtualization, Xen is the industry's first
supported software base for Intel VT. Xen runs unmodified
guests such as Windows, on "the bare metal" at native
processor speed on Intel VT enabled hardware.
Paravirtualization in this case provides I/O performance
that Intel VT cannot provide, while still using the best in
hardware support for accelerated performance of
virtualization. Finally, since Xen has no product fee, it
results in a much lower total cost of ownership.
http://staging.xen.org/about/faq.html
#----------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul,

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold
I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind

up running VM

Post by Bill Arnold
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact

that it requires a

Post by Bill Arnold
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine

vulnerable to

Post by Bill Arnold
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some

point. I know

Post by Bill Arnold
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't

require a host).
You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running
DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.

That's good to know. What I'm really wishing for is a

"real" VM where it's

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major

guest OS's.

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
Besides using it for testing apps with different releases,

my expectation is

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
that it would provide complete protection for the OS from

attacks, because

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA

Post by Bill Arnold
virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched.
It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel?
Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
Paul

[excessive quoting removed by server]

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Whoops, let me try that again. LOL

I took a look at Xen on Fedora a few years ago. I decided
against it at that time; because, Xen is patched right into
the kernel, which stop the regular kernel updates to my
Fedora OS. As you may know, the Fedora kernel is updated
often, and I liked being able to run the latest version of
the kernel.

However, having the Xen that handles VMs patched
right into the kernel helps security; since, the kernel must
exits in memory in its entirity in order to run, so there is
no file to hack, other than the kernel file which isn't
currently loaded in memory. Additionally, security provided
by applications like SELinux, that prevent intruders from
messing around with memory or OS files, can go a long ways
towards securing a computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux

Regards,

LelandJ

Post by Leland F. Jackson, CPA
I took a look at Xen on Fedora a few years ago. I decided
against it at that time; because, Zen if patched right into
the kernel This kind of frooze me into the kernel that
contained Zen. As you may know, the regular Xen patched
kernel, and I no longer received regular kernel updates. I
always like being able to run the latest Fedora kernel.
However, having the application that handles VM patched
right into the kernel helps security; since, the kernel must
exits in memory in its entirity in order to run. If you
couple that with additional security provided by
applications like SELinux, that does not allow writing to
memory or OS files, and you have pretty good security.

[Christof Wollenhaupt]

What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's the OS, has no

dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's.

That would be VMWare vSphere... But be careful what you wish for. <g> With
these solutions the number of problems seems to correlate with the price.
vSphere can be very expensive.

[Bill Arnold]

Christof,

Post by Bill Arnold

What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's the OS, has no

dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's.
That would be VMWare vSphere... But be careful what you wish
for. <g> With these solutions the number of problems seems to correlate
with the price.
vSphere can be very expensive.

I see, http://www.vmware.com/vmwarestore/vsphere_purchaseoptions.html

If VM does turn out to be the best solution for protection from attacks,
then I imagine there will be more competition in that area and prices will
drop.


Bill

Post by Bill Arnold
--
Christof

[Michael Madigan]

What about setting up one box with an older windows server and run terminal services. Then any box with remote desktop will work and you only have to keep one old machine.

Subject: Re: Run Foxpro 2.6 for DOS and Foxpro 2.6 for Windows on 64-bit Windows?
Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 10:22 AM
On 1/29/10 1:35 AM, Bill Arnold

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Malcolm Greene
Short of creating a 32-bit VM, is there any way I

can run FoxPro

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Malcolm Greene
2.6 for DOS or FoxPro 2.6 for Windows applications

on a 64 bit

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Malcolm Greene
version of Windows Vista or Windows 7

Professional?

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Malcolm Greene
Is there a tool like TameDOS that would enable us

to run these

Post by Bill Arnold

Post by Malcolm Greene
applications on newer hardware?

I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to

wind up running VM

Post by Bill Arnold
anyway.
No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the

fact that it requires a

Post by Bill Arnold
host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the

machine vulnerable to

Post by Bill Arnold
attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at

some point. I know

Post by Bill Arnold
IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't

require a host).
You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM
running DOS or Windows 3.1. From
the user's POV, it would be totally native.
Paul

[excessive quoting removed by server]

[Christof Wollenhaupt]

Hi Michael,

Post by Michael Madigan
What about setting up one box with an older windows server and run

terminal services. Then any box with remote desktop will work and you only
have to keep one old machine.

Do you have a setup like this? We found that running DOS applications on a
terminal server really makes the system slow with just few instances and is
quite unstable. Not even TameDOS works in this regard. Terminal servers also
have many cores, but FPD 2.6 must be bound to a single core, or it crashes
sooner or later. If you have any tips to share for running FPD on a terminal
server, those will be greatly appreciated.

Looks like I'll work on the DOS app for a few more years.

[Michael Madigan]

I have not tried it in practice.

I might be cheaper to do a down and dirty upgrade to VFP

Subject: RE: Run Foxpro 2.6 for DOS and Foxpro 2.6 for Windows on 64-bitWindows?
Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 5:46 PM
Hi Michael,

Post by Michael Madigan
What about setting up one box with an older windows

server and run
terminal services.  Then any box with remote desktop
will work and you only
have to keep one old machine.
Do you have a setup like this? We found that running DOS
applications on a
terminal server really makes the system slow with just few
instances and is
quite unstable. Not even TameDOS works in this regard.
Terminal servers also
have many cores, but FPD 2.6 must be bound to a single
core, or it crashes
sooner or later. If you have any tips to share for running
FPD on a terminal
server, those will be greatly appreciated.
Looks like I'll work on the DOS app for a few more years.
--
Christof
_______________________________________________
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are
the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or
medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for
those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

[Alan Bourke]

Post by Malcolm Greene
Short of creating a 32-bit VM, is there any way I can run FoxPro
2.6 for DOS or FoxPro 2.6 for Windows applications on a 64 bit
version of Windows Vista or Windows 7 Professional?
Is there a tool like TameDOS that would enable us to run these
applications on newer hardware?

There is no way to run 16-bit apps natively on any 64-bit Windows.

All TameDOS does is quiet the keyboard polling that some DOS apps do,
which used to cause high CPU usage in Windows. TameDOS is also 16-bit.

I would suggest investigating DosBox. It's intended for running DOS
games in Windows but I have successfully run Foxpro for DOS applications
using it.

[Dave Crozier]

I go with Alan's suggestion on using DosBox. I have used it to successfully
run an older Foxpro V2.5 program whilst converting it to VFP.

Dave C

-----Original Message-----
From: profox-***@leafe.com [mailto:profox-***@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Alan Bourke
Sent: 29 January 2010 09:59
To: ***@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Run Foxpro 2.6 for DOS and Foxpro 2.6 for Windows on
64-bitWindows?

Post by Malcolm Greene
Short of creating a 32-bit VM, is there any way I can run FoxPro
2.6 for DOS or FoxPro 2.6 for Windows applications on a 64 bit
version of Windows Vista or Windows 7 Professional?
Is there a tool like TameDOS that would enable us to run these
applications on newer hardware?

There is no way to run 16-bit apps natively on any 64-bit Windows.

All TameDOS does is quiet the keyboard polling that some DOS apps do,
which used to cause high CPU usage in Windows. TameDOS is also 16-bit.

I would suggest investigating DosBox. It's intended for running DOS
games in Windows but I have successfully run Foxpro for DOS applications
using it.

[Alan Bourke]

To clarify, DosBox will get you past the hurdle of running FoxPro for
DOS. To run FoxPro for Windows under DosBox, you would have to install
Windows 3.11 under DosBox, and then run your FoxPro for Windows
application under that. So in that case I would imagine a VM is your
best bet.

[Malcolm Greene]

Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I'm going to use VMware Workstation 7
or VMware Player 3.

Regards,
Malcolm