From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MCVWU-0003Az-2p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:15:38 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MCVWP-000364-DF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:15:37 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53127 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MCVWP-00035m-8b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:15:33 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53327)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1MCVWO-0006vn-Ra
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:15:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4A28E224.4000806@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:15:16 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] POLL: Why do you use kqemu?
References: <4A26F1E3.1040509@codemonkey.ws>
	<4A27FC69.9070501@mayc.ru>	<alpine.DEB.1.00.0906050243140.26154@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
	<4A28CD17.4050107@redhat.com> <4A28D9E0.6030404@wpkg.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A28D9E0.6030404@wpkg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Anton D Kachalov <mouse@mayc.ru>

On 06/05/09 10:40, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> On 06/05/09 02:44, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Anton D Kachalov wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is one point missed: "I do not use kqemu". Just to have
>>>> statistics
>>>> weight for the other side.
>>>
>>> I think that is totally beside the point. The question is if it is worth
>>> to continue to support kqemu. And frankly, for that I could not care
>>> less
>>> if there are people _not_ using kqemu if there are enough that _do_ use
>>> kqemu to merit a continuation.
>>
>> A poll for both users and non-users would make sense IMHO. It should
>> include reasons for both groups though, i.e. like this:
>>
>> I use kqemu because:
>> [ ] old hardware
>> [ ] *BSD host
>> ....
>>
>> I don't use kqemu because:
>> [ ] using kvm instead
>> [ ] using virtualbox instead
>> [ ] doesn't work stable for me
>> ...
>
> And what should I answer if I both use kqemu on some (old) hardware, and
> kvm otherwise?

Make it multiple choice then, so you can check both "old hardware" and 
"use kvm".  Likewise one could mark both "bsd" + "old hardware" or "use 
virtualbox" + "not stable".

Could be further refined by a field for the number of machines for each 
choice, but it starts to become silly then ;)

cheers
   Gerd