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

[Alberto Ruiz]

On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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.

For what's is worth, I'm hearing your concerns, and perhaps with the
exception of "we want to encourage people to submit their modules
upstream" (people may have valid reasons not to) I think all of them are
perfectly valid.

The other thing I want to note is that I'm not suggesting that we should
do it if it means carrying a considerable amount of time. I am going to
reach out to the VBox guys and see if there's any common ground that can
be achieved.

> 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

-- 
Greetings,
Alberto Ruiz
Engineering Manager - Desktop Applications Team
Red Hat, Inc.