F15 / VirtualBox
pbrobinson at gmail.com
Fri Jun 10 08:04:13 UTC 2011
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 02:00:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:01:06PM +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
> > > I agree. As virtualization technology becomes more and more involved
> > > and frequent on users systems, particularly with advanced Linux users,
> > > I think there needs to be a strong focus on ensuring that all releases
> > > run in virtualized environments without any major issues. ie.
> > > Virtualbox.
> > >
> > > Perhaps a dedicated team among the developers who specialize in this area.
> > I don't think there are any developers working on this area, where "this
> > area" is Virtualbox. We don't ship Virtualbox. We don't ship a kernel
> > that has any knowledge of Virtualbox. There's a good argument for having
> > this be part of the QA process and requiring that we boot in the common
> > virtualisation environments as part of the release criteria, but I don't
> > think we can realistically suggest that our virtualisation developers
> > (who work on code that has nothing to do with Virtualbox) be responsible
> > for that.
> I'm curious why virtualbox has gained so much inertia so quickly.
> Based solely on the number of kernel bug reports we get that seem to be
> related to it, I have almost zero confidence in it being reliable.
In the OLPC/Sugar world a lot of people use it on Windows/Mac because
its non invasive, simple to use, free, universal on all platforms and
they run Sugar on a Stick in a VM.
> Why are people choosing it over other solutions, and what can we change
> in qemu/kvm to get users using that instead ?
Problem is that in the education space Sugar is aiming at (K-6) Mac
and Windows is the primary OS.
More information about the devel