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

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:34 AM, 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 ?

Sure, possibly.  I'm happy to remove myself from my WG seat on this
topic.  That doesn't mean my concerns as a kernel maintainer are
invalid though.

> 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.

By all means, discuss it.  However, it's already been discussed
several times and not a single person or group has made a case that
it's worthwhile to carry drivers out-of-tree that while being open
source licensed are actually not very open source friendly at all.
Let alone offer to provide the resources to handle that.  This is
something that everyone says "oh, this sounds good" and then expects
the kernel team to pick up just because.  I'm saying we can't do that.

Ease of use and popularity do not always win out.  If they did, we'd
ship a heck of a lot more than we already do.

josh