>>> On 2/16/2015 at 09:19 PM, Phil Tully <tull...@optonline.net> wrote: > In my opinion( soap box alert), KVM on Z architecture is a mistake > promulgated by inane market speak managers in IBM that don't see the damage > they are doing by diverting resources from the "currently" most capable > virtualization product one the market. "Currently", because continued lack > of development will allow the lead to slide away from z/VM and therefore the > Virtual Z platform.
Even managers in IBM don't get to control the open source community. There have been mainframe people interested in KVM for a long time, and it was going to happen one way or the other. Having IBM employees contribute was helpful in terms of not having KVM on System z stink in comparison to the other architectures. And I seriously doubt that any of the Linux developers (who were already working on Linux for IBM) could be reassigned to work on z/VM and be effective very quickly. So, while I share your belief that z/VM is the gold standard for virtualization today, I don't see KVM overtaking that any time soon. I would add "if ever," but that would just be tempting fate and history. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
