F15 / VirtualBox

Peter Robinson 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 mailing list