From the qvm-create of the DispVM on, it seems to me the two are identical. Am I missing something?
The only custom[ization] I see is in the DisposableVMTemplate AppVM, where in the Custom case changes are made. However, this step is listed as (optional) - if not done, hasn’t a Static been created?
To phrase the issue a different way, aren’t there really only 2 types of DisposableVM:
“dispNNNN” DisposableVM:
– NOT pre-created
– template has appmenus-dispvm set to 1
– dispNNNNs are created on the fly
“Named” DisposableVM:
– IS pre-created
– uses the same name every time
And at the DisposableVMTemplate level, a given DisposableVMTemplate AppVM can be:
Customized (changed from its underlying TemplateVM) or not as needed
At the same time the template for any number of “dispNNNN” as well as “Named” DisposableVMs
If the above is accurate, it seems to be a simpler (3 vs. 2 types), more concise view of both levels.
So, the question is: What am I missing or mis-understanding?
Perhaps… But somebody(s) sometime conceived of and spent time documenting “Static” and “Custom” - should first have an understanding of what they were thinking…
Never done a PR, and won’t have time for at least 2-3 weeks… Might need to update a thing or two on the DispVM page as well - seems there’s some 3.2 stuff left over…
We’ll see how life goes & if anyone else chimes in with thoughts.
DispVM vs disposable AppVM? I wonder about this myself.
I have a combination of both. The disposable AppVM seems leaner because it doesn’t require a template, but is it more secure (AppVM > TemplateVM)? If the DispVM is compromised, does it mean it has an extra template layer of protection before the TemplateVM can be compromised (DispVM > AppVM-dvm > TemplateVM)?