On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You say that kvm-tool's scope is broader than Alex's script, therefore
> the latter is pointless.
I'm saying that Alex's script is pointless because it's not attempting
to fix the real issues. For example, we're trying to make make it as
easy as possible to setup a guest and to be able to access guest data
from the host. Alex's script is essentially just a simplified QEMU
"front end" for kernel developers.
That's why I feel it's a pointless thing to do.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You accept that qemu's scope is broader than kvm-tool (and is a
> superset). That is why many people think kvm-tool is pointless.
Sure. I think it's mostly people that are interested in non-Linux
virtualization that think the KVM tool is a pointless project.
However, some people (including myself) think the KVM tool is a more
usable and hackable tool than QEMU for Linux virtualization.
The difference here is that although I feel Alex's script is a
pointless project, I'm in no way opposed to merging it in the tree if
people use it and it solves their problem. Some people seem to be
violently opposed to merging the KVM tool and I'm having difficult
time understanding why that is.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
