On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Pete Travis <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/01/2014 09:30 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx >> <mailto:bruno@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 16:19:22 +0300, >> Elad Alfassa <elad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:elad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >> wrote: >> >> However, "hardware accelerated graphics" shouldn't be in the >> minimal - >> people will still run Workstation on VM platforms where it's >> unavailable, >> eg. KVM/spice, we don't want them to think it's impossible to run >> our own >> OS on our own virtualization platform. >> I think it would make more sense for "Hardware accelerated >> graphics" to be >> in the recommended section. >> >> >> If you are using software for graphics you need a powerful CPU to make >> the system usable. That is an odd combination on real hardware. So I think >> for a recommendation it makes sense to suggest hardware graphic acceleration >> for workstation. I think the running it as a VM on one's desktop is an >> outlier case. >> >> >> Running in a VM on a desktop is actually a very important usecase. We're >> targeting developers after all, developers might develop to our platform and >> test in a vm when running our platform or when running another platform. >> >> -- >> -Elad Alfassa. >> >> > > > Virtualization opens an entirely different context for hardware > requirements. QXL for guests hosted on my low power i3 utility server run > gnome-shell quite acceptably; my i7 workstation brings that up to > near-native for modern integrated graphics. Traditional cirrus type > graphics deliver a wholly unusable experience on the same hardware. QXL > isn't a magic bullet, though; on hosts with older hardware, performance > definitely degrades. I don't have a lot of experience with VMWare or vbox > stacks, but I assume there is a spectrum of unacceptable to adequate to > excellent there as well. > > Maybe some guidelines specifically for virtualized instances of Workstation > would be a good idea. Recommend SPICE/QXL, with general guidelines for > other solutions, ie "For best results using Fedora Workstation as a virtual > machine, SPICE graphics with the QXL virtual graphics adapter are > recommended [link to explanation]. Other virtualization solutions should > provide adequate virtualized graphics hardware to ensure the best possible > experience." Separate guidelines for VMs would be a good idea. I'm not sure I'd go into non-KVM setups though. I don't think we're realistically going to be able to 1) target those and 2) test them. > ....and maybe something brief about how testing/development in a VM doesn't > actually require a responsive desktop environment? Er... that's somewhat confusing given we're talking about the Workstation product in a VM. I think we'd want to make a good impression of the product in a VM to entice people to install it on their real hardware. Having a responsive desktop for the "desktop" product is probably a high priority. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
