| 1 |
Thierry de Coulon wrote: |
| 2 |
> I haven't tried qemu on Gentoo yet - my previous testing (with or without |
| 3 |
> kernel module) showed a dramatic lack of speed (at least when powering a |
| 4 |
> virtual machine running Windows). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Current cvs / the next qemu version will allow more to be virtualized |
| 7 |
(and therefore require less emulation), and people are reporting speeds |
| 8 |
in the same ballpark as vmware -- though I haven't tried the additional |
| 9 |
virtualization myself yet. See [1] and the rest of the thread. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I'm a supporter of open source, but there *are* closed source programs that |
| 12 |
> perform better sometime (note that there also are closed source programs that |
| 13 |
> perform worse...) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
VMware is most certainly a very good and polished product and faster |
| 16 |
than qemu at the moment, I agree with you 100% there. Mentioning qemu |
| 17 |
was just an idea for people who didn't want to spend any money :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Also qemu has some interesting extra features, though these will |
| 20 |
probably be of lesser interest to people who only wish to run windows. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> But I'll keep an eye on quemu - that by the way I believe is free but not |
| 23 |
> really open source, but maybe I'm mistaking. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Qemu itself is LGPL, the kernel module is proprietary (but gratis). |
| 26 |
There is a GPL'd kernel module (qvm86[2]) that does the same job and |
| 27 |
hopefully this situation will improve in the future (i.e. both |
| 28 |
maintainers working on a GPL'd kernel module). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Marco |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-02/msg00110.html |
| 33 |
[2] http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/qvm86/ |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives