From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C2eLb-0001o6-0i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:16:59 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C2eLW-0001iR-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:16:58 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2eLW-0001iA-Ag for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:16:54 -0400 Received: from [144.140.70.21] (helo=gizmo11bw.bigpond.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C2eGU-0003MJ-Pq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:11:43 -0400 Received: from softlog-lindsay ([192.168.5.69]) by softlog.com.au with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id I3DXMK-0000JG-A9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:08:44 +1000 Message-ID: <4136569F.1030707@softlog.com.au> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:09:19 +1000 From: Lindsay Mathieson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Attitute and Predisposition of the List & newbie documets References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060506040200090800040703" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060506040200090800040703 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thomas Munn wrote: > While I am not among those who are enlightened enought to talk about > opcodes and their proper optimization, I do have a few observations to > make, having watched this list for 2 months. > > 1. People really don't like newcomers on this list. As a newbie from a few weeks ago, that is *not* my experience, people have been quite helpful. > 3. QEMU is rather DIFFICULT to use. I have been a UNIX admin for 10 > years. Well I haven't, and I managed fine. I would venture to say that qemu is *not* for casual users at the moment, its in heavy dev and prone to breaking :( > 4. I am compiling a list of my difficulties, and will be writing > documentation to help people setting qemu for the first time. The > existing documentation simply does not cover in high detail how to get > qemu working. For example, I found it very confusing on what > qemu-fast is for. A simple "QEMU-FAST ONLY works with linux at this > time. You must install a working GUEST image, apply the appropriate > patch to the GUEST kernel, and then run qemu-fast. DO NOT TRY to use > QEMU-FAST otherwise. It will simply segfault! Thats great - thanks, gotta admit I spent a long time trying to get qemu-fast working before I realised it was the guest that was patched, not the host :) --------------060506040200090800040703 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thomas Munn wrote:

While I am not among those who are enlightened enought to talk about opcodes and their proper optimization, I do have a few observations to make, having watched this list for 2 months.

1. People really don't like newcomers on this list.

As a newbie from a few weeks ago, that is *not* my experience, people have been quite helpful.

3. QEMU is rather DIFFICULT to use. I have been a UNIX admin for 10 years.

Well I haven't, and I managed fine. I would venture to say that qemu is *not* for casual users at the moment, its in heavy dev and prone to breaking :(

4. I am compiling a list of my difficulties, and will be writing documentation to help people setting qemu for the first time. The existing documentation simply does not cover in high detail how to get qemu working. For example, I found it very confusing on what qemu-fast is for. A simple "QEMU-FAST ONLY works with linux at this time. You must install a working GUEST image, apply the appropriate patch to the GUEST kernel, and then run qemu-fast. DO NOT TRY to use QEMU-FAST otherwise. It will simply segfault!

Thats great - thanks, gotta admit I spent a long time trying to get qemu-fast working before I realised it was the guest that was patched, not the host :)

--------------060506040200090800040703--