From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 12/3/2024 11:10 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article ,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>> On 12/3/2024 10:36 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>> In article ,   
   >>>> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>>>> KVM runs in Linux not on Linux. Which makes it type 1.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nope.  KVM is dependent on Linux at this point.  The claim that   
   >>>> it is a type-1 hypervisor is predicated on the idea that it was   
   >>>> separable from Linux, but I don't think anyone believes that   
   >>>> anymore.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is the opposite. KVM is type 1 not because it is separable   
   >>>from Linux but because it is inseparable from Linux.   
   >>   
   >> Kinda.  The claim is that KVM turns Linux+KVM into a type-1   
   >> hypervisor; that is, the entire combination becomes a the HV.   
   >> That's sort of a silly distinction, though, since the real   
   >> differentiator, defined by Goldberg, is whether or not the VMM   
   >> makes use of existing system services, which KVM very much does.   
   >   
   >ESXi is basic OS functionality and virtualization services   
   >in a single kernel.   
      
   Yes, but it doesn't do much other than run VMs and support those   
   VMs.   
      
   >Linux+KVM is basic OS functionality and virtualization services   
   >in a single kernel.   
      
   Yes, but it does much more than just run VMs.  For example, I   
   could run, say, an instance of an RDBMS on the same host as I   
   run a VM.  Linux, as a kernel, is separable from KVM; KVM, as   
   a module, is not seperable from Linux.   
      
   >They are logical working the same way.   
      
   Funny how this is the inverse of what you tried to argument   
   in https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/nPYz56qulqg/m/LN-xzlJ1AwAJ,   
   where you wrote:   
      
   >The differences are not in how they work, but in history   
   >and reusability in other contexts:   
   >* Linux existed before KVM   
   >* Linux has more functionality so it can be and is used without KVM   
      
   Yes, and that's the distinction Goldberg defined.   
      
   >But type 1 vs type 2 should depend on how it works not on   
   >history and reusability in other contexts.   
      
   Like I said, the terminology is imprecise.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)