On Jun 9, 2011, at 6:37 PM, Dave Jones 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. > > Why are people choosing it over other solutions, and what can we change > in qemu/kvm to get users using that instead ?
Beer-free and multi-platform, like others have said. I use VirtualBox myself on my MacBook Pro running Mac OS X. Note, however, that I have a Fedora 15 guest installed and running perfectly fine this very minute, so I dunno what the supposed problems are... (For Linux hosts, I do use kvm.) -- Jarod Wilson ja...@wilsonet.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
