On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Clint Byrum <cl...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Noted. It sounds like Xen has a lot of inertia.
I'd say big companies have a lot of inertia. Once they have chosen to invest in a technology, be it Xen or KVM, they build systems on this technology for years, hire experts (and get their employees to become experts), and they're not willing to reconsider their position a few months after (or even years) after just because the trend has changed. Xen was the state-of-the-art not so long ago, and it's already taken these big companies long enough to use it. KVM is the medium-to-long term future for many still. > I feel like there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but we shouldn't make > our decisions just because somebody says KVM can't do this or Xen can > do that. I think many would agree that with current hardware and a brand new DC, it's generally a better idea to invest in KVM than Xen. But if we want Ubuntu to be an enterprise class OS for servers, that means we need to provide the tools for people to be conservative if they want to, and not to have to rethink the technology they've been successfully using for years. So, encouring the use of KVM, I'm all for it ; supporting the people who still need to use Xen and would like to do so with Ubuntu, that's also a major point if you want Ubuntu to be a reference in DCs. Nowadays, who would use inetd to implement a network service if they have xinetd at hand? I guess not many people. But we're not going to remove inetd from Ubuntu, because a lot of old services still use it and it's a standard per se, whether we use it for internal Ubuntu development or not. Raphaël -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
