Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > I do not think that kqemu benefits from being closed source, and probably
> > more
> > people with me. People will pick an open implementation before any closed
> > one,
> > even industry, they're picking up faster than you think ;^)
> > I did not agree with kqemu being released without the proprietary flag,
> > which
> > is why I submitted the issue, and,if I can help it, it'll be open source or
> > surpassed by something that is - no offense.
> This is BS. You are basically going into a restaurant and say: "I don't
> think that lovely steak benefits from having a price tag. I do not agree
> with having to pay for this steak, and if I can help it, it'll be for
> Think about it. Fabrice does a wonderful job. Guess who's paying him.
Besides, there is already an open source equivalent to kqemu, called
kvm86, isn't there? I'm surprised it doesn't get more attention.
Perhaps that indicates that people _don't_ pick the open
implementation before the closed one, when the author is respected as
much as Fabrice?
Qemu-devel mailing list