From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H6kFU-0006i4-8k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:04:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H6kFS-0006h2-Ae for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:04:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6kFR-0006gv-QX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:04:53 -0500 Received: from [65.74.133.4] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1H6kFR-0005js-7F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:04:53 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] VirtualBox PC virtualization released as Open Source Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:37:59 +0000 References: <45ABCFE0.7060609@gmx.de> <20070115225723.GE15118@erizo.shearer.org> <46d6db660701160025q5e34810cy508f0469a3c1a3ee@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46d6db660701160025q5e34810cy508f0469a3c1a3ee@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701160838.00541.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tuesday 16 January 2007 08:25, Christian MICHON wrote: > based on *quick* benchs and without entering too much in detail > (in case I'd violate EULA), it seems faster than qemu+kqemu on > windows hosts :( Why is that a bad thing? VirtualBox is GPL, kqemu is not, so I'd say VirtualBox being faster is a good thing. It means there's no need for proprietary kernel modules. Paul