someone interested in packaging VirtualBox?

[Andrew Farris]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> No, it's a user's view with no interest in being limited to single 
> platforms or limited functionality.

<snip>

> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> History has shown time & agin that betting
>> on technology that is not in the mainline kernel brings severe long term
>> maintainence pain which is not sustainable.
> 
> The pain of interface changes in the kernel is self-inflicted. And it is 
> just one of the reasons users should stick to things that work 
> cross-platform.

The choice of VirtualBox kernel module versus some other kernel module is very 
definitely NOT cross platform anymore.  So what exactly is going to be stuck to 
here?

The VirtualBox kernel module is linux specific with an interface 'glue' that 
also works with other platforms kernel code.  There is no reason VirtualBox 
could not adopt a new kernel module interface and work with it after helping to 
get it up to speed with their needs (i.e. what their current kernel module 
does).  And when that occurred the users would have no idea what had happened 
because the modified interface 'glue' would keep doing its job making their 
virtual machines portable while talking to a different kernel module.

The kernel module is not cross platform and neither is their kernel interface 
'glue' code for that particular module.

The VMWare kernel code for each host OS is as different as rice and beans, and 
necessarily so.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
  gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----