I said Q1 for the first release. On schedule. https://xcp-ng.github.io/news/2018/03/31/first-xcp-ng-release.html

@scottalanmiller You should have mixed some stuff. PV mode doesn't need PV drivers by definition. You meant HVM? (to be in PVHVM then?)

@scottalanmiller Citrix doesn't care anymore on server virt market, since a while now.

@scottalanmiller I don't see exactly what are you talking about. What's PV driver feature?

@tim_g said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

@olivier said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

@tim_g said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

If features and costs (free) were identical across the board, I would choose KVM hands down.

I love being able to run off Fedora Server, plus all the doors that open up by doing that... which you can't get from Hyper-V or VMWare.

Sure Xen can be installed on there too, but it's dieing and I'm less familiar with it.

Can you stop with that FUD? Thanks. It's not dying at all. I hear this since 2006. It's like saying Linux is not secure because Open Source.

No fear or doubt, just uncertainty. But this is only because of how Citrix is treating Xen Server, and how Amazon is moving from Xen to KVM.

I feel the only thing that can save Xen is XCP-ng. I'm really hoping for it's success and have high hopes for it.

That's because you have a very partial view of Xen project. Xen project is far more than XenServer/XCP. Xen is the core hypervisor, used by a LOT of companies (from automotive to the Cloud).

A lot of companies are using it Xen + their own toolstack without making publicity around it (like AWS, which is NOT leaving Xen, just adding some instance on another HV to get some specific features not in Xen yet). Some companies (Gandi) even switch from KVM to Xen:

https://news.gandi.net/en/2017/07/a-more-xen-future/

So your opinion is mainly forged by limited number of sources, in a loop of telling "Xen is dying" since 10 years. The main reason is that because Xen is far less "segmented" than KVM (eg: easier to make clickbait articles on Xen security issues than KVM, despite KVM sec process is almost catastrophic/non-transparent)

Yes, we switched to master, but it's been a while now (months?)

Also, it's up to you to decide on what "head" (commit/tag/branch) to follow in your own scripts ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@danp This is just because we merged in the mono repo. I don't think there is any issue to pull everything on master.

@tim_g said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

If features and costs (free) were identical across the board, I would choose KVM hands down.

I love being able to run off Fedora Server, plus all the doors that open up by doing that... which you can't get from Hyper-V or VMWare.

Sure Xen can be installed on there too, but it's dieing and I'm less familiar with it.

Can you stop with that FUD? Thanks. It's not dying at all. I hear this since 2006. It's like saying Linux is not secure because Open Source.

@danp What do you mean? I don't understand.

aGPLv3 if you think some "hosters" can use it without contributing (ie not actually run the code on your machine = no need to share your modification with GPLv2 for example).

Guess which license made AWS adding stuff to Xen without sharing it? So, even if I'm selling software, I'm convinced aGPLv3 is more fair toward the community. /my2cents