| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:58:12PM +0800, Pavel Labushev wrote: |
| 4 |
> I wouldn't call such news good. KERNEXEC, especially on x86_64, plays a |
| 5 |
> big role in protecting the kernel from both local and remote attacks. |
| 6 |
> KVM doesn't require such arguable compromises (no pun intended). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
True. But KVM unable to run Mac OS X, that's main reason to use VirtualBox. |
| 9 |
Less important things: KVM don't support 3D acceleration; don't have |
| 10 |
signed drivers for guest Windows (and thus require switching Windows to |
| 11 |
"Testing mode" to install drivers); sometimes it need awful tricks like |
| 12 |
building custom BIOS from patches sources; I can't give my KVM virtual |
| 13 |
machines to friends which use Windows as host OS; etc. |
| 14 |
KVM works and this is very good, but for now it's still far away from real |
| 15 |
products like VMware or VirtualBox. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
WBR, Alex. |
Archives