From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S264487AbRFXUfW>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:35:22 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S264489AbRFXUfN>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:35:13 -0400
Received: from fluent1.pyramid.net ([206.100.220.212]:31540 "EHLO
	fluent1.pyramid.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S264487AbRFXUfE>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:35:04 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010624133249.00b95d10@mail.fluent-access.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:33:58 -0700
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
        Jason McMullan <jmcmullan@linuxcare.com>
From: Stephen Satchell <satch@fluent-access.com>
Subject: Re: What are the VM motivations??
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106241525430.7419-100000@imladris.rielhome.
 conectiva>
In-Reply-To: <20010624140114.A10745@jmcmullan.resilience.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

At 03:26 PM 6/24/01 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Jason McMullan wrote:
>
> >       Uhh. That's not what I was ranting about. What I was
> > ranting about is that we have never 'put to paper' the
> > requirements ('motiviations') for a good VM, nor have we
> > looked at said nonexistent list and figured out what instrumentation
> > would be needed.
>
>But we have.  The fact that you missed the event doesn't
>make it any less true.

URL, please?

If the requirements/motivations were "put on paper" getting them on the Web 
is not a big deal.  If it's *only* on paper, I can give you my fax number 
and I'll be happy to put it up on the Web.

Satch