[sogubsys]

From a general generic user perspective, you're right that that would be useful. As a user, I also understand that frustration.

Basically, it comes down to having very little money, if any, to fund these tasks and most of the work is done by volunteers. It is much easier and faster to work with the local environment than manage kernel portability issues between different BSDs and even Linux.

The cool thing is that anyone is free to help with the project and port things if they choose. It is truly an issue of funding and finding folks willing to do the work (and maintain it).

It is a lot of work and specialized knowledge across different kernel domains.

[xemdetia]

Is it wrong to have different virtualization solutions out there though? It's generally nice to know that people are trying to enhance how virtualization works on multiple platforms to suit their particular itch and we can all benefit from these different ideas being tried so we can choose the best pieces of them over time. Objectively, we want these virtualization solutions to be suited to the kernel/pipeline they are running on to give the expected behaviour and performance for the guest workload.

From the end user side things like libvirt have done a lot to make the interface to these systems consistent, and so I really don't feel a ton of pain moving between virtualization solutions anymore as an end user compared to having to deal with xen/qemu/vmware/virtualbox/hyper-v incantations. If I'm just trying to run a workload I don't care about NVMM, unless it has a particular feature that I need for network emulation like say RapidIO, Fibre Channel or Infiniband as an emulated link layer.