AFAIK, WebGL require graphics card and VM doesn't have one. So is there any way we can open a webpage having 3D content using Virtual machine.
I want a virtual machine with a Chrome browser and want to use that VM to see WebGL samples, as I don't have direct internet access in my workstation.
Hope I phrased my question correctly.
Chrome will run with software based OSMesa. Unfortunately you'd have to build OSMesa for your OS then run Chrome with --use-gl=osmesa. The Chromium source has a target for OSMesa which is/was used to be able to run various tests on VMs in the cloud.
Related
My supervisor is pushing developers to install any compiler (Visual studio etc) on a virtual machine vs desktop. His argument is, it is more secure to put compiler on virtual in case desktops are hacked. But if i can access virtual machine from my desktop then hacker can too. I am just trying to understand why it is more secure to put compiler on virtual. Thank you.
If virtual machine is hosted in the cloud(public/private/internal) then probably somebody else is managing security in the cloud. That case probably it is almost certain that it will provide more security then bare desktop.
However we are relying on the somebody.
If your VM is running on desktop hypervisor, then I would prefer doing all work on the VM. In hacking scenario, I would still have my desktop, while VM may be gone.
I have seen something similar when Ransomware attack happened, all windows desktop were gone including local filesystem/vms, but only VM running Windows were affected, and hypervisor and local filesystem were all good if running non-windows host os.
Not sure if it answer your question, but putting my perspective on what I have seen so far in the industry.
I'm trying to develop for HoloLens but my laptop doesn't support the needed specs, so I was trying to figure out a virtualized solution (namely, using an Azure VM).
After unsuccessfully running the emulator on the Azure VM, I found that according to Microsoft (https://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/hh831531), "The Hyper-V role is not supported on a Microsoft Azure virtual machine", which kills that idea.
Does anyone know of an alternative virtual option for developing and running the HoloLens emulator, which doesn't rely on the host machine's (i.e. my laptop) specs?
Yes, in the latest version of Unity which is Unity 5.5, there's a new feature called "Holographic Emulation" that will enable you to run on a simulated device directly in the editor.
As for the requirements, you need to have
Unity 5.5 installed in your machine
Windows 10 Anniversary Update (or later) installed
Here's the link to the blog in case you want to check more details about the simulator
Hololens emulator IS the Hyper-V virtual machine with Windows 10 and 3D graphic capabilities. The host machine should be able to run Hyper-V (CPU/BIOS limitation) and have a 3D adapter. More details are here:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/using-the-hololens-emulator
Then you could install the emulator from
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/install-the-tools
Hololens emulator is not supported in VM due to CPU limitation, you can use holographic simulation in Unity instead.
I am running Ubuntu Server 16.04 on the Google Compute Engine and I want to install Unity 7.4 desktop over it and connect to it with Google Remote Desktop.
It is my development machine (headless desktop), not a standalone server which needs to be minimal. As I work on the go, I am used to work remotely in the cloud. There is no problem with hardware as I can increase the RAM, CPU or HDD as needed.
After I install ubuntu-desktop package I am not able to connect SSH port 22 to my compute engine instance anymore and I lost control completely and have to recreate new instance.
There is no headless Google Remote Desktop installer, so basically I have to install temporary VNC to install Chrome, then configure the Chrome RDP headless service to run on system startup, delete the temporary VNC connection and after that I should be able to connect there anytime with my Chrome client on the go.
I have following questions:
Is Unity able to work with VNC? I have found only tutorials for XFCE and similar lightweight desktops.
Is Unity able to work with Google RDP?
What about performance? There is no 3D graphics card in Google Cloud
I have LTE on the go, so network should be no problem.
if impossible to run Unity remotely, which lightweight desktop is closest to it? (I am quite a Mac fan)
I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong: Using Microsoft's Device Emulator 3.0 with one of the included WM6.5 runs fine and feels quite responsive, even when debugging own (.net-)applications.
But if I try an own custom image, the user interface inside the emulator is extremely unresponsive and sometimes it takes two seconds for WinCE to register a simple click on a UI button.
There are no informative kernel debug prints...
Details:
Platform Builder for WinCE6R2
ARMV5 Emulation target
Industrial control template with minimal options
Release build
Emulator options: 128MB RAM, NE2000 emulation, 480x272x16 video settings
Is there anything I can take a look at to further troubleshoot this issue?
If you need to debug just applications you can build an image using the Virtual PC BSP. It provides better performances than the ARM emulator. You can connect using TCP/IP and even copy data files by mounting the VHD file in your machine if you have a Windows 7/8 PC.
I've been playing with HTML5 geolocation and noticed that I get consistently better results on my Windows system than on my Linux system.
I dual boot, so hardware is identical. Wifi is on in both scenarios, and there's no GPS adapter built in.
By more accurate I mean that on Windows the location shown is usually within 50-100m of my actual location, while on Linux the location is off by ~6km (and it never varies, it always shows the exact same location, basically the city center).
Tested on Chrome and Firefox on Windows, and Chrome, Chromium and Firefox on Linux.
Update: Just tested on Safari/Mac OSX. Same precision as in Windows. So Linux is the only system with bad results :(
Can anybody reproduce this? Do Firefox and Chrome on Linux not make use of the WiFi as an additional source of location information? What else am I missing here?
Thanks for your valuable input!
Acording to this article: HTML5 geolocation accuracy
Not all Geolocation services are the same, and they certainly don’t all use the same algorithms and exact same databases. Because of this the results typically vary across browsers that use different Geolocation services.
It also explains that Firefox on Windows uses Google Location Services. Firefox on Linux uses GPSD, GPS daemon is a service for geolocation on Linux.
That may be the reason for the difference in accuracy.