|
|
|
|
|
|
by chrismsnz
3863 days ago
|
|
|
> anyone wanting to know OpenBSD's position on virtualization should spend 20m-1hr digging through threads like that Okay, okay. Personally, I think the fact that OpenBSD did not support any of the current virtualisation solutions, and now have an appropriate one in the works says a lot about their position. And, frankly, what use is an organisations "position" on VM hosting to a user? It either supports it or it doesn't, and if you don't plan on developing it the reasons don't really matter. EDIT: I'm also going to point out that mailing list posts in general rarely stand on their own, and exist within a context. |
|
|
It's ambiguous far as past is concerned. Two possibilities are (a) they didn't care for longest but caved on the issue or (b) they wanted it, waited for a solid codebase that never showed, and finally did one of their own. All I can tell is that it matters to them now.
"And, frankly, what use is an organisations "position" on VM hosting to a user? It either supports it or it doesn't, and if you don't plan on developing it the reasons don't really matter."
Not true. Very few develop for Linux or FreeBSD vs number of stakeholders. Nonetheless, many features non-developers would want came about because people needed it or were talking about it. I agree with you for OpenBSD specifically, though, as they've been clear about "code it if you want it so bad."
"EDIT: I'm also going to point out that mailing list posts in general rarely stand on their own, and exist within a context."
True, too. Probably best way to apply that is to just not quote mailing lists if it's a huge conversation. I only quote or back those references because later interviews corroborated them a bit for virtualization in general. We certainly shouldn't just grab things off mailing lists without a context, though.