[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code

From: François Revol
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 20:04:02 +0200 CEST

> > 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

> 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

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 :
yet we have a new DDM, bluetooth support, ...


Couldn't they just write their KVM code cleanly ?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]