Talk:QEMU

Grammar

"Wine windows API reimplementation and DOSEMU are the main targets for QEMU in user mode emulation." -- The use of "targets" here is ambiguous. Could someone who understands what this sentence means please reword it appropriately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.150 (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows support

The article says "incomplete support for Windows" but I've found no problem at all installing and running multiple versions, including Window XP Professional using the latest QEMU on x86. Same with all the conventional apps. Of course, accelerator makes the performance tolerable. --Phil Smith

This problem I know existed in 0.6.1. CVS had the fix for a while, and now the 0.7.x series is perefectly able to boot XP. --Reub2000 21:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe what the article means by "incomplete support for Windows" is as a host OS, not as a guest OS. I believe the free virtualization module does have a windows version as well, so I don't know if it holds true at the moment. Anyways, the non-fullsystem emulation (for running binaries) is Linux only as far as I know. Rvalles 08:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I know it used to have incomplete Windows support – I think that's why it's there, the article was originally written when QEMU was still in its early stages – but since I haven't used Windows in well over two years now, I honestly wouldn't know... if it's running better, go ahead and change it (if you or someone else hasn't already). — Martin Ultima (multima)   •   talk   contribs   leave message 16:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I use it with no problems on Windows since I started using QEMU at the beginning of the 2006. I do believe the mentioned sentence is unnecessary. --Arny 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase "incomplete support for Windows" was referring to the kqemu kernel accelerator module, in particular the '-kernel-kqemu' switch which can't do 16-bit processing causes Win9x to crash with a "Windows protection error." Yet qemu can run Win9x without the '-kernel-kqemu' switch. This information more properly belongs in the kqemu article. --AC 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How?

According to the blog of a kernel hacker, [1], QEMU does some pretty interesting stuff to manage what it does. But I'm afraid her summary made little sense to me, and I could not get the paper she referenced. A 'how' section is a necessity, I think. --Maru 05:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hardware drivers?

It is noted as a disadvantage that it doesn't have special drivers for the guest system, but isn't it close enough that it emulates existing hardware, so its drivers can be used in the similar fashion? I've added that info, but I believe all that could be completely removed from Disadvantages because of that. However, as I am not sure about that, I won't touch it, and some more opinions would be welcome here. --Arny 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Having special drivers for the guest system could provide better I/O performance. For example, drivers included in the guest system would probably have small delays between byte writes in order to accomodate speed requirements of real hardware. But the delays are not really neessary for hardware that is emulated, and just are wasting time. There are other types of inefficiencies that come from needing to emulate real hardware (the guest OS drivers encode and pack data into bit structures, then QEMU's hardware emulation layer needs to unpack and decode the data again to interpret it). -- Bovineone 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Boot from USB?

"*It isn't possible to boot from the USB subsystem from within QEMU (it only can boot from floppy, hard disk, CD-ROM or an image of any of these (eg: an ISO Image of Windows XP Installation CD)), although a USB driver is available with the "-usb" switch, and will soon be loaded by default."

I saw that listed under the disadvantages of qemu and am wondering how this is relevant to qemu. The bios qemu uses (either bochs bios or bbios) would be responsible for this.

Knoppix 4

Can somebody post "the string" to run Knoppix 4 in Qemu in Windows XP? renegadeviking

It would probably be something along the lines of qemu -cdrom knoppix.iso -boot d -m 128 – try running qemu without any options for the complete list. The examples provided here are intended mainly as very general examples, and they intentionally don't list any specific operating system distribution – don't want WP:SPAM, do we? (Note – those examples were posted based on how it works on my own Linux system, so I'm not sure if you'd need any extra options for Windows...) — Martin Ultima (multima)   •   talk   contribs   leave message 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Qemu-Launcher ?

Looks like an old tag; it would be nice to see it go. Anyone care whether Qemu-Launcher gets merged into this article? I lean towards a yes, but I'm not a quorum; if I can see three or four more votes that aren't a no, I'll do the merge.  ◉ ghoti 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I feel that though they are a little different, they are really the same, so I feel that they should get merged. Voted by:TheEgolf 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No - They are very different as one is an accessory of the other. I've been using Qemu for about 2 years and only heard of Qemu-launcher just now so it is hardly a necessary component. Qemu is a complicated tool and adding another tool in to the article would only confuse things. Robert Brockway 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No - I really don't think it belongs in this article, and it's not as though this is the only front-end for QEMU. --StuartBrady (Talk) 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

YES - I don't think that it's notable enough on its own. I think what would be a good idea is to have a separate section on different QEMU front-ends (there's another KQEMU unrelated to the virtualizer that actually runs it from KDE, and then EWOK), and if any of them becomes significant in its own right it can be forked into a separate article. Martin Ultima [ multima - talk - contribs - leave message ] 04:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

YES - As per Martin Ultima's comment. --Witchinghour 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

YES But only as a link to an article with a list of frontends. Otherwise, NO. JWhiteheadcc 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the launcher is pointless without the thing it launches, and in this case it's only notable (if it is at all) because of QEMU itself. I also agree with Martin Ultima's comment regarding front-ends.  ◉ ghoti 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Paravirtualization?

Why the article said that KQEMU uses paravirtualization? As KQEMU is closed source who knows that for sure? And I'm personally doubt that it is. 217.26.163.26 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, you're right. That was my brain fart -- it looks like KQEMU changes QEMU from a type 2 to a type 1 hypervisor. I'll remove the para* reference, but please feel free to add your own wisdom.  :)  ◉ ghoti 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

license factual details

I don't know if this is true. http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/license.html says QEMU is under lgpl, only the accelerator module is proprietary. --71.198.173.255 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the kqemu (accelerator) module is GPL now. Robert Brockway 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

kqemu is now GPL

quite recent, but kqemu is now gpl 2... wish I could update and reword article, but *woosh* off to movie cinema I go... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.42.225 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

yes kqemu is open source now. The article is outdated.--Hasanidin 22:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

"This is accomplished by running user mode and virtual 8086 mode code directly on the host computer's CPU"

"and should theoretically benefit from KQEMU's speedup, if KQEMU supported VM86 mode which is not the case."

which one is correct? Plugwash 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither really. I've updated appropriately. AnthonyLiguori

VMware uses virtualization

It says that VMware doesn't do virtualization, right? If so, then that's not correct. Boches and non-accelerated QEMU are emulated at the CPU level. VMWare Workstation and the accelerated QEMU try to run as much code natively as possible. If you want sources for this information, please go to the websites of QEMU and VMWare or just compare their speeds to Boches and plain QEMU! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWhiteheadcc (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

How do you prononce it?

Can someone add the good way of saying "QEMU"--195.137.113.186 10:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always split it q emu and pronounced the q as the name of the letter and the emu like the first sylable of emulator but i've no idea if this is correct or not. Plugwash 13:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always read it as "que(ue) emu(lator)" or "Queue-Ee-Em-You" (Q-E-M-U), but it would be nice to be sure. Have you tried looking here? http://kidsquid.com/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/QemuDict Or here? http://qemu-forum.ipi.fi/ If all else fails, you can post a new question there and leave a link here. JWhiteheadcc 12:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is answered in the QEMU FAQ.  ◉ ghoti 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FMOD

I moved the comment about the Windows version using the FMOD sound layer from the shortcomings section and included it with the comment about the (L)GPL, where it belongs. I left the note that points to the FMOD site, though I'm not so sure it belongs considering I found no note of QEMU there. BioTube 14:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

...and does not, therefore, fully qualify as free software.

In the first paragraph "It is free software, but when running on Windows uses the proprietary FMOD library, and does not, therefore, fully qualify as free software." Could someone familiar with various "free software" licences make this more specific? perhaps a citation or two? Cuvtixo 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you consider FMOD a component of QEMU on Windows, then you would surely also consider this is a GPL violation -> "and does not, therefore, fully qualify as legal software" :-) If you don't consider FMOD a component of QEMU, then QEMU for Windows, as a whole, is licensed under the GPL. The individual source files are under a variety of licenses, but QEMU as a whole is distributed under the GPL[2]. --StuartBrady (Talk) 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hubbardismo? Very important

Is there anything to do with the dangerous Scientology scam cult in IT virtualization? I noticed that both "QEMU" and "Xen" projects use parts of the name of hubbardist's supreme god (galactic warlord). His name is Xenu or Xemuaccording to secret "Thetan" manuscripts that were leaked on the web, he is supposed to have killed 50 billion aliens in Earth's ancient volcanos to populate our planet with suffering soul-spirits and a lot of similar cultic nonsense.

This issue is of great importance, because the scientologist cult owns many IT companies, for example they tried to attack the state security of France and Germany via Windows 2000 modules (the built-in disk defragmentation utility was OEM-produced by a wholly scientologist owned company). The German secret service and french Surete discovered the trick and forced Microsoft to drop defrag from their national language versions of Windows 2000. Please note that scientology is banned in France and Germany and it is a crime against the state (=treason) to be adherent.

Therefore if some virtualization solutions have anything to with the L. Ron Hubbard scam companies, such software could be banned in large parts of the EU.

This should be explained in the article. Does QEMU have anything to do with Scientology? If not, are you willing to change the name to avoid confusion? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)