|From:||Anthony Liguori <anthony-AT-codemonkey.ws>|
|To:||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>|
|Subject:||Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project|
|Date:||Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:50:31 -0500|
|Cc:||Avi Kivity <avi-AT-redhat.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg-AT-cs.helsinki.fi>, "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang-AT-linux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>, Sheng Yang <sheng-AT-linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, kvm-AT-vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti-AT-redhat.com>, oerg Roedel <joro-AT-8bytes.org>, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen-AT-redhat.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb-AT-redhat.com>, Zachary Amsden <zamsden-AT-redhat.com>, ziteng.huang-AT-intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme-AT-redhat.com>, Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec-AT-gmail.com>|
On 03/21/2010 05:00 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > If that is the theory then it has failed to trickle through in practice. As > you know i have reported a long list of usability problems with hardly a look. > That list could be created by pretty much anyone spending a few minutes of > getting a first impression with qemu-kvm. > I think the point you're missing is that your list was from the perspective of someone looking at a desktop virtualization solution that had was graphically oriented. As Avi has repeatedly mentioned, so far, that has not been the target audience of QEMU. The target audience tends to be: 1) people looking to do server virtualization and 2) people looking to do command line based development. Usually, both (1) and (2) are working on machines that are remotely located. What's important to these users is that VMs be easily launchable from the command line, that there is a lot of flexibility in defining machine types, and that there is a programmatic way to interact with a given instance of QEMU. Those are the things that we've been focusing on recently. The reason we don't have better desktop virtualization support is simple. No one is volunteering to do it and no company is funding development for it. When you look at something like VirtualBox, what you're looking at is a long ago forked version of QEMU with a GUI added focusing on desktop virtualization. There is no magic behind adding a better, more usable GUI to QEMU. It just takes resources. I understand that you're trying to make the point that without catering to the desktop virtualization use case, we won't get as many developers as we could. Personally, I don't think that argument is accurate. If you look at VirtualBox, it's performance is terrible. Having a nice GUI hasn't gotten them the type of developers that can improve their performance. No one is arguing that we wouldn't like to have a nicer UI. I'd love to merge any patch like that. Regards, Anthony Liguori
Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds