On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> >> Briefly, 1) we aren't staffed for it, 2) it encourages crappy behavior >> on the part of the module authors by providing disincentive to getting >> it upstream, 3) it's a maintenance hassle, 4) we typically already >> have alternatives (this is particularly true in the case of virt), 5) >> it's yet another entry in an already rapidly expanding test matrix >> that has to be checked off (which goes back to item 1), etc etc. >> >> I consider myself to be fairly open to many things. Carrying >> virtualbox modules out-of-tree when the authors refuse to even submit >> them upstream for review and have no intention of ever doing so is not >> one of those things. This is one of the few items where I simply say >> no. > > Do I sense a possible conflict of interest here ? > > I think Alberto's argument that including such drivers will make it a > lot easier to try the workstation on popular virtualization solutions > carries some weight and deserves to be discussed, instead of rejected > out-of-hand. > > -- > desktop mailing list > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop Well, I have used VirtualBox guest additions before, they break every time VirtualBox is updated (and you need to update and rebuild them) and they are extremely unstable. I honestly think they provide *worse* experience for users. And I remember someone in an other thread here said their 3d acceleration is not stable enough to use with gnome-shell. -- -Elad Alfassa. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
