[waon]

If you look at the original post, it says "virtualization" in big bold letters. The precise definition of the term "VM" may perhaps be debatable, but I don't think it's fair to market your system as supporting Linux VMs, when in fact, you're emulating the CPU instead of virtualizing.

More importantly, I still haven't got the slightest idea what a "software VM" means, either. It's a term that I've never seen before. I even did an online search and found nothing.

[jagged-chisel]

Visit Wikipedia, in the search field type "virtual machine" but do not hit enter or search. Notice the text in the immediate results says "software that emulates an entire computer." Now, visit the page[1]: "...a virtual machine (VM) is an emulation of a computer system." This says nothing about whether the virtualization is entirely software, assisted by hardware, or entirely hardware.

A "software virtual machine" is a disambiguation that I chose indicating that the "machine" is implemented entirely in software with no help from special silicon (contrast with [2]). I can't fathom why that would be so controversial.

The entire thread comes down to this: the demo of x86 Linux running on Apple Silicon could very easily have been running in a virtual machine made entirely of software. No one claimed, as I recall, that Silicon implemented any hardware assistance for executing x86 code. There might even be IP issues doing that (IP - intellectual property, not "internet protocol".)

See also [3]

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_virtualization

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual...

[waon]

> Visit Wikipedia, in the search field type "virtual machine" but do not hit enter or search.

Wikipedia is useful tool, but it's wrong to rely on it for preciseness or the as absolute source of truth, especially on highly technical topics.

> This says nothing about whether the virtualization is entirely software, assisted by hardware, or entirely hardware.

Again, what does this even mean? What's your specific example for an "entirely software" virtualization or "entirely hardware" virtualization?

> A "software virtual machine" is a disambiguation that I chose indicating that the "machine" is implemented entirely in software with no help from special silicon (contrast with [2]). I can't fathom why that would be so controversial.

You can't just invent a new term without any explanation and wonder why people wouldn't just "get it."

> The entire thread comes down to this: the demo of x86 Linux running on Apple Silicon could very easily have been running in a virtual machine made entirely of software

Are you sure of this? I was assuming it was ARM Linux.

> No one claimed, as I recall, that Silicon implemented any hardware assistance for executing x86 code.

No one claimed that you claimed such a thing either.

[ubercow13]

Where can I read about the true definition of virtualization?

[waon]

If you really want a formal definition, you could read this:

https://profsandhu.com/cs6393_s14/popek-goldberg-1974.pdf

Though some details may arguably be outdated, the general concept applies.

[ubercow13]

Thanks, the first section is pretty simple and covers it well.

[saagarjha]

It was ARM Linux, one of the demos confirmed this.