From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FHPZq-00044i-6s for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:09:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k29I5vu0000402; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:05:57 GMT Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k29I5uCU008260 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:05:56 GMT Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Mar 2006 18:05:56 -0000 Received: from d126223.adsl.hansenet.de (EHLO [192.168.2.189]) [80.171.126.223] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 09 Mar 2006 19:05:56 +0100 X-Authenticated: #25576946 Message-ID: <44106E7E.8070600@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:05:50 +0100 From: Marco Matthies User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] VMware Player on Gentoo question References: <5bdc1c8b0603071706p4b9ea8bay8b137d4f7f136f7e@mail.gmail.com> <200603091344.27194.tcoulon@decoulon.ch> <4410562C.8040601@gmx.net> <200603091830.35547.tcoulon@decoulon.ch> In-Reply-To: <200603091830.35547.tcoulon@decoulon.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: c48513b8-4fb7-4a6b-b4bf-429687661897 X-Archives-Hash: 253c0aa791be62f3c59db61d3807fc82 Thierry de Coulon wrote: > I haven't tried qemu on Gentoo yet - my previous testing (with or without > kernel module) showed a dramatic lack of speed (at least when powering a > virtual machine running Windows). Current cvs / the next qemu version will allow more to be virtualized (and therefore require less emulation), and people are reporting speeds in the same ballpark as vmware -- though I haven't tried the additional virtualization myself yet. See [1] and the rest of the thread. > I'm a supporter of open source, but there *are* closed source programs that > perform better sometime (note that there also are closed source programs that > perform worse...) VMware is most certainly a very good and polished product and faster than qemu at the moment, I agree with you 100% there. Mentioning qemu was just an idea for people who didn't want to spend any money :) Also qemu has some interesting extra features, though these will probably be of lesser interest to people who only wish to run windows. > But I'll keep an eye on quemu - that by the way I believe is free but not > really open source, but maybe I'm mistaking. Qemu itself is LGPL, the kernel module is proprietary (but gratis). There is a GPL'd kernel module (qvm86[2]) that does the same job and hopefully this situation will improve in the future (i.e. both maintainers working on a GPL'd kernel module). Marco [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-02/msg00110.html [2] http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/qvm86/ -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list