On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 08/13/2010 09:05 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> Given that RPMfusion still offers it, I would say that the developers have
>>> the
>>> latest hardware and the budget that implies, and regard two years old as not
>>
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 09:05 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> Given that RPMfusion still offers it, I would say that the developers have
>> the
>> latest hardware and the budget that implies, and regard two years old as not
>> worth supporting
>
> Actually, it has nothing to do with
On 08/13/2010 09:05 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> Given that RPMfusion still offers it, I would say that the developers have
> the
> latest hardware and the budget that implies, and regard two years old as not
> worth supporting
Actually, it has nothing to do with that but a poorly maintained
Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> On 08/11/2010 11:09 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>On a machine with hardware virtual support, currently using qemu-kvm
>> for VMs, is there a use for kqemu at all? And is it still useful to
>> improve support on machines which lack hardware virtual, such as p4 and
>> simi
On 08/11/2010 11:09 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>On a machine with hardware virtual support, currently using qemu-kvm
> for VMs, is there a use for kqemu at all? And is it still useful to
> improve support on machines which lack hardware virtual, such as p4 and
> similar?
>
I was a former user of
On a machine with hardware virtual support, currently using qemu-kvm
for VMs, is there a use for kqemu at all? And is it still useful to
improve support on machines which lack hardware virtual, such as p4 and
similar?
--
bill davidsen
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
