[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] remove pieces of source code

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2981 bytes --]

François Revol wrote:
>>> That said, here are the arguments for keeping kqemu
>>>
>>>  o Even though it's unmaintained, it seems to work for people
>> At some point, I bet, at least the Linux bindings will break, and no 
>> one
>> will be interested or able to fix that anymore. Same may happen to 
>> other
>> platforms (doesn't Windows 7 come with a new driver model?).
> 
> Yes and MS even made supplications to hw vendors to write drivers for 
> it, as they got slapped by their own monopoly practices :D
> Instead they should just ask them to release specs so everyone can 
> write drivers for their own OS and restore fair competition...
> 
>>>  o There is no alternative for non-Linux users and folks with non-
>>> VT/SVM
>>> hardware
>> The non-HVM argument will become widely irrelevant (for desktops) 
>> very
> 
> Hmm not everyone has the money to renew their hw every year or so. I 
> still have an AthlonXP and a PentiumM based laptop here, which do work 
> fine.
> 
>> soon. The non-Linux issue will likely persist - unless someone feels 
>> so
>> much pain to write some KVM for those platforms. But as long as there 
>> is
> 
> <rant reason="Sorry you just cought me on a bad day">
> Well, some FOSS devs have a tendancy those years to act like 
> proprietary devs, disregarding other OSes as "non existant, not 
> relevant" and so "not worth caring", which is both quite irritating and 
> wrong, since many of those actually account for the technodiversity 
> necessary to keep "innovation" going. I still remember all the buzz I 
> read about Linux getting "tickless", wow, I mean like, BeOS had it 10 
> years ago (and Irix probably also but it wasn't really desktop 
> oriented).
> 
> Just like ALSA, which is written by Linux, for Linux, without everyone 
> else in mind, discrediting OSS API, which actually is defacto std on 
> UNIX, and making it unportable to anything else.
> 
> Maybe those things like KVM could be written in a portable way...
> OSSv4 proves kernel code can be written in a portable way, despite them 
> having to maintain a huge ugly kludge to account for the total lack of 
> a stable DDM API in Linux... and again the total disregard from Linux 
> devs dismissing the problem as "you aren't in the kernel tree, you 
> don't exist". Of course they wouldn't include OSSv4 in the tree since 
> it's meant to be portable anyway.
> 
> Still, Haiku proves one can go forward yet have a stable driver API.
> the OSSv4 BeOS port runs fine in Haiku :
> http://revolf.free.fr/Alchimie-7/Alchimie7_OSS_Haiku.en.pdf
> yet we have a new DDM, bluetooth support, ...
> 
> </rant>
> 
> Couldn't they just write their KVM code cleanly ?

Rant back: If you contribute to the KVM project, you would have a chance
to influence its direction (always given that you provide a
corresponding added value). But plain ranting doesn't change a single
bit. That's how open source works.

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]