Talk:Kernel-based Virtual Machine

message: I've seen some articles mention that Xen wanted to be included in the kernel for years, and instead a fairly new component, KVM, gets included.
I was wondering what the background/politics that lead to decision are?  It might be an interesting addition to this article.
::I'm thinking it's because Xen made a deal with Microsoft - certainly, that seems to be what the latest Linux Format magazine is implying... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.34.212 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simpler --Treekids 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics behind kvm inclusion decision? 

message: I've updated the page considerably to reflect the progress currently made.  Feedback would be useful here.  Provided that there are no objections to the current content, I'd like to extend it more in the near future.--Anthony Liguori 00:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: This page makes extensive references to usenet posts, via the Gmane site. Why that one, instead of the more common (and possible longerlived) google groups archive or a honest-to-god standardised news:// link (which last, admittedly, will be problematic to retrieve for many people)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.113.45 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gmane is website that archives public mailing lists and provides a mail-to-NNTP gateway. Messages found on Gmane are not present on other Usenet newsservers. -- intgr [talk] 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet references 

message: Can the following "using the VirtIO framework; this includes a paravirtual Ethernet card, a disk I/O controller, a balloon device for adjusting guest memory-usage, and VGA graphics interface using VMware drivers" be moved out of the intro, to the relevant section on technical details, please ? Thanks in advance. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unload intro 

message: It seems that Red Hat was the first to implement KVM, but does that make it proprietary? The way the article was written implies that it is simply a framework, and any kernel can be used to mimic a machine in virtual space.Rajpaj (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: KVM was written by Qumranet, before Red hat acquired it. Because it is free software, part of the Linux kernel, any company, not just Red hat can use it or modify it - so it is by no means proprietary. Red hat does have on its payroll all the influential KVM developers, so it has significant leverage on the direction that its development is taking, but nothing is preventing other companies from chipping in. In fact, yesterday, an alliance was formed by several companies (Redhat, IBM, HP, Intel, and others) that want to develop and promote KVM - see  Nyh (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Is information needed regarding the original author (inventor) of KVM in this article?  Is that the question?  Otherwise, bore others with your general questions.  Does it need to be said that KVM is an open software solution for the linux kernel, another open software solution and is necessarily not proprietary (i.e. fascist, captialist, intellectual property trash)?  Just ask the Free Software Foundation if they'll legally defend that statement, or read up on it, like in wikipedia.Kckid (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this generic? 

message: I propose a disambiguation page for this article. My main reason for such a request is that KVM is in reality, a generic forecast. This article specifies only the Linux version.Rajpaj (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The KVM site says that you need hardware virtualization, but the first paragraph of this article suggests that you don't.  Which is right? 219.90.148.160 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the official developers says something it's bound to be more accurate than a boiled down rehash of comments by the same people. The KVM site is right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.60.16 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How, is that an answer?  This article doesn't make it clear.  I'm going to edit.Kckid (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a clear answer: Follow the sources. It's not appropriate for WP to contradict the published requirements.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

text: It's saying that KVM requires hardware virtualization, not hardware emulation. Luke1337 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not depend on VT-X? 

message: This sounds more like advertising than anything else. In fact the page seems to have been done-over by a Solaris/BSD flag-waver, what with two backwater OpenSolaris forks appearing at the top of the "implementations" list. Ris icle (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree.  But, if one starts looking for this kind of thing especially, in articles connected to the software industry and business automation, it would become a life's work.  Not, that I'm discouraging anyone.Kckid (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup has to start somewhere.  We have similar problems like this at Ubuntu (operating system), with flag-wavers sporadically opposing cleanup of the article. (It does not get into the fact that it's primarily a desktop OS, not a server one, aside from the Ubuntu Server variant; the current version's own documentation even says that much of it is outdated, and if you've ever tried to use Ubuntu as an enterprise server you'll very rapidly find out that most of the server-related docs are in fact years out of date. Other problems include citing non-independent, self-published and/or user-generated material right and left, including for potentially controversial claims. I've addressed these problems at its talk page). The overall problem of failure of our tech articles to abide by WP:NOT#ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV policies is widespread, and working to improve this should be done where it's needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "offering additional visibility and storage reliability not previously available" 

message: There's been an "expert-subject" () template on this page since 2012, yet it doesn't seem clear to me why. So I removed the template transclusion. --TheAnarcat (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Yeah, the article is good from the point of having no factual errors.  However, it's far away from providing a good coverage of the KVM. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the case, but it doesn't require an expert to do that; anyone with a *n*x and virtualization background could do the source research necessary.  The expert needed tag is for when an article seems to have been hopelessly muddled by non-expert editors who are misinterpreting the source material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  expert-subject: why? 

message: Hello, !  Regarding your recent renaming of the article to Kernel-based virtual machine, see, KVM actually is a proper name, because it's a specific software product (just like VMware, for example), not some kind of a virtualization concept.  Thus, we should rename the article back to Kernel-based Virtual Machine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; my edit summary was not precisely enough. Whether it's a proper name or not isn't really relevant; a large number of computer science proper names are not capitalized (consistently, or at all) like typical proper names, and are all-lowercase, camelCase or StudlyCaps, among other options.  This one in particular is not always capitalized in sources, but does seem to be capitalized in most of them.  I'll have WP:RMTR reverse the move.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title capitalization 

message: Mentioning 1.2.0 and 2012 as latest release seems quite misleading, perhaps we should just remove that information? That's only about the old (separate) downloads, as far as I can understand: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Downloads Nemo 07:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable release 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kernel-based Virtual Machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725063318/http://airlied.livejournal.com/77553.html to http://airlied.livejournal.com/77553.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Kernel-based Virtual Machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426033902/http://kerneltrap.org/node/8088 to http://kerneltrap.org/node/8088
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021055601/http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/f/f9/2012-forum-virtio-blk-performance-improvement.pdf to http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/f/f9/2012-forum-virtio-blk-performance-improvement.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128114720/http://qemu-buch.de/e/Content to http://qemu-buch.de/e/Content
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: VirtIO redirect to this article. There should be a section about VirtIO. Takers? 109.192.123.125 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  VirtIO no longer redirects to this article, but to QEMU, which is a more appropriate place for it. KVM is not actually involved in presenting a device model to guests. There should probably be a dedicated page for VirtIO, since it's not specific to QEMU either, but we can leave that for another time. Nmeyerhans (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  VirtIO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kernel-based Virtual Machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103042/http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/2595 to http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/2595
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A lot of information in this article seems to be concerned with QEMU rather than KVM.  Sections "graphical management tools" and "emulated hardware" are especially irrelevant to KVM and most of their contents apply to QEMU (or qemu-kvm).  Section "emulated hardware" also contradicts with the prior statement that KVM does not perform emulation. Magic sergeant (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted most of the hardware emulation content here and updated the text to indicate that device emulation is provided by the userspace application. There are several available, each of which presents a different device model. KVM itself emulates very few devices. Nmeyerhans (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between QEMU and KVM 

message: I’ve tried to clarify the confusion about emulation mention in the note in the “Emulated Hardware” section. Please check if it is clear now and change or remove the note  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafimoor (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of the emulation confusion