[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code
From: |
Jan Kiszka |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code |
Date: |
Sun, 31 May 2009 11:13:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
François Revol wrote:
>>> That said, here are the arguments for keeping kqemu
>>>
>>> o Even though it's unmaintained, it seems to work for people
>> At some point, I bet, at least the Linux bindings will break, and no
>> one
>> will be interested or able to fix that anymore. Same may happen to
>> other
>> platforms (doesn't Windows 7 come with a new driver model?).
>
> Yes and MS even made supplications to hw vendors to write drivers for
> it, as they got slapped by their own monopoly practices :D
> Instead they should just ask them to release specs so everyone can
> write drivers for their own OS and restore fair competition...
>
>>> o There is no alternative for non-Linux users and folks with non-
>>> VT/SVM
>>> hardware
>> The non-HVM argument will become widely irrelevant (for desktops)
>> very
>
> Hmm not everyone has the money to renew their hw every year or so. I
> still have an AthlonXP and a PentiumM based laptop here, which do work
> fine.
>
>> soon. The non-Linux issue will likely persist - unless someone feels
>> so
>> much pain to write some KVM for those platforms. But as long as there
>> is
>
> <rant reason="Sorry you just cought me on a bad day">
> Well, some FOSS devs have a tendancy those years to act like
> proprietary devs, disregarding other OSes as "non existant, not
> relevant" and so "not worth caring", which is both quite irritating and
> wrong, since many of those actually account for the technodiversity
> necessary to keep "innovation" going. I still remember all the buzz I
> read about Linux getting "tickless", wow, I mean like, BeOS had it 10
> years ago (and Irix probably also but it wasn't really desktop
> oriented).
>
> Just like ALSA, which is written by Linux, for Linux, without everyone
> else in mind, discrediting OSS API, which actually is defacto std on
> UNIX, and making it unportable to anything else.
>
> Maybe those things like KVM could be written in a portable way...
> OSSv4 proves kernel code can be written in a portable way, despite them
> having to maintain a huge ugly kludge to account for the total lack of
> a stable DDM API in Linux... and again the total disregard from Linux
> devs dismissing the problem as "you aren't in the kernel tree, you
> don't exist". Of course they wouldn't include OSSv4 in the tree since
> it's meant to be portable anyway.
>
> Still, Haiku proves one can go forward yet have a stable driver API.
> the OSSv4 BeOS port runs fine in Haiku :
> http://revolf.free.fr/Alchimie-7/Alchimie7_OSS_Haiku.en.pdf
> yet we have a new DDM, bluetooth support, ...
>
> </rant>
>
> Couldn't they just write their KVM code cleanly ?
Rant back: If you contribute to the KVM project, you would have a chance
to influence its direction (always given that you provide a
corresponding added value). But plain ranting doesn't change a single
bit. That's how open source works.
Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Glauber Costa, 2009/05/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Gerd Hoffmann, 2009/05/29
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Consul, 2009/05/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Glauber Costa, 2009/05/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Andreas Färber, 2009/05/30
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Jan Kiszka, 2009/05/31
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Andreas Färber, 2009/05/31
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code, Avi Kivity, 2009/05/31