[RFC] non-KVM graphics/IO drivers in our default install media

[Elad Alfassa]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>>
>> Briefly, 1) we aren't staffed for it, 2) it encourages crappy behavior
>> on the part of the module authors by providing disincentive to getting
>> it upstream, 3) it's a maintenance hassle, 4) we typically already
>> have alternatives (this is particularly true in the case of virt), 5)
>> it's yet another entry in an already rapidly expanding test matrix
>> that has to be checked off (which goes back to item 1), etc etc.
>>
>> I consider myself to be fairly open to many things.  Carrying
>> virtualbox modules out-of-tree when the authors refuse to even submit
>> them upstream for review and have no intention of ever doing so is not
>> one of those things.  This is one of the few items where I simply say
>> no.
>
> Do I sense a possible conflict of interest here ?
>
> I think Alberto's argument that including such drivers will make it a
> lot easier to try the workstation on popular virtualization solutions
> carries some weight and deserves to be discussed, instead of rejected
> out-of-hand.
>
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Well, I have used VirtualBox guest additions before, they break every
time VirtualBox is updated (and you need to update and rebuild them)
and they are extremely unstable.
I honestly think they provide *worse* experience for users. And I
remember someone in an other thread here said their 3d acceleration is
not stable enough to use with gnome-shell.


-- 
-Elad Alfassa.