mechanic wrote:Thanks for that info, kraileth. Pity that this kind of thing is not better described and updated regularly in the docs.
As far as I know it's a single developer working (in his free time) on that shared folder problem, trying to fix issues with 5.x's virtual filesystem and FreeBSD. The last thing that I heard was that he got it working read-only. If you follow the history of the port here
, you can see that since version 5.x was introduced, a year ago, it was updated frequently (at least once a month, sometimes four or five times a month). Keeping VirtualBox running on FreeBSD at all is a gigantic task. Making everything work smoothly obviously is not possible with the little resources that there are.
Getting GhostBSD running in a virtual machine is just too much hassle for me I'm afraid, I have better things to do. Surprising that these things do not have more focus, as I would think most BSD servers are run virtually on large machines.
The problem here is the combination of FreeBSD and VirtualBox. Yes, there are a lot of FreeBSD instances out on Cloud platforms like AWS, Digital Ocean or even Microsoft's Azure, doing very important work. Companies like Microsoft are paying employees to make sure that FreeBSD works well on Hpyer-V. It's just Oracle that does not care about FreeBSD a lot...
And when it comes to the guest support, again, VirtualBox is the problem. FreeBSD grew its own modern Hypervisor (called Bhyve) which attracted a lot of developer's attention and drew even more resources off from VirtualBox. So as far as FreeBSD is concerned, you've probably unfortunately picked the least well supported Hypervisor.
kraileth wrote:... but I haven't heard of the issues having been resolved. I might have missed it, but chances are that it's simply not possible to use shares with a FreeBSD-based guest for the moment (it works fine with Linux/Windows guests on FreeBSD, though).
I'm a bit perplexed ... it is true that the "integtated" shared folders functionality might be broken in some way, yet it is still possible to use the classic "samba" approach, and as long as your guest is properly configured in the (virtual) network, it must work. Admittely this will require some work to configure the things.
Most likely, yes. But Windows as host, Virtualbox's internal NATing AND Samba is a combination that doesn't exactly sound like fun. I would imagine that there are thousand things that could go wrong. Perhaps Virtualbox's bridged mode could make that easier? But since I haven't had a copy of Windows on real hardware for ages and know next to nothing about configuring Samba, I can't say for sure.