On 05/29/2017 08:41 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > It's more productive to develop hypervisors than to write about them. ;) _I_ agree with that. My boss, not necessary. To let you know at which point non-IT people may be stuck, in a different area I'm still required to teach "classfull" IP networking. Seriously, that was obsoleted by RFC1518/1519 more that 20 years ago! How many of my students will encounter devices still using classfull network? > > People like classifications. They suggest the world is simple and can be > abstracted. You need to look closer to understand that this is generally > not that simple. But that's a boring, often disliked story to tell... Yes, exactly. That's why I wanted to take time discussing with you, "experts" about that topic. It would have been hundred times more easy to just copy-paste and rehash the same story we can find in a plethora of blog posts. But my boss will _not_ do that. If he sees in my course outline that "hypervisor type 1 type 2 classification is meaningless", he will type that in his favorite search engine and will find pages and pages of results saying the exact opposite. Going back to your initial argument Jan, seconded by Christoph: > It's more productive to develop hypervisors than to write about them. ;) On 05/29/2017 10:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I never understood why people cared about it too much, the terms come > from a academic paper in the 70s and we're even fully correct back > then, and have gotten less an less useful. If we want those arguments to be heard by a large audience, I think we cannot avoid the need for some "authority" to publish about that. Call that a manifesto or a paper, but the point is people like me would have an "argument from authority" to quote and reference, so that will become an idea to discuss, rather than just an opinion exchanged by some people in a mailing lists. -- -- Sylvain Leroux -- sylvain@xxxxxxxxxxx -- http://www.chicoree.fr
