Michael Catanzaro píše v Út 13. 09. 2016 v 14:59 -0500:
On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 18:18 +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Agreed, Bijiben 3.20 is broken, so I don't see a reason to include it.
FYI, you've responded to my proposals for F24... this one was already implemented last cycle!
I would keep it in for the time being, but it's true GNOME Boxes need to improve. I'm not sure if we can achieve it with the current scope. It's too simple to be used by power users. I've talked to Fedora QA several times what would have to change in order to make them switch to Boxes as their daily drivers, so that it can get enough test coverage. There are quite a few fundamental features missing. I don't think that with the current scope of Boxes it's something the virt guys who now develop virt-manager would be interested in. Again many fundamental features missing. So the problem of Boxes is that it could be a nice tool for average users, but people who can move it forward don't use it and because of missing features it's not really interesting for them.
Well most of the bugs I complained about got fixed; it works fine for me now. I use it on a daily basis and I'm pretty happy with it. When I tried to use virt-manager, I couldn't figure out how to create and start a VM, so I'm pretty sure that's not a viable competitor. :)
We actually wound up moving Boxes to GNOME core upstream, shortly after I wrote this complaint and Zeeshan started looking into those bugs. There's really only one major problem I see remaining regarding virtualization, which is that sometimes it gets stuck just spinning its spinner forever. That's unfortunate, but not the end of the world. The other major problem is that it replaced our remote desktop client, vinagre, but it can't handle RDP yet. That would be a cool project to work on.
I spoke with Kamil Paral of the Fedora QA the other day and when I mentioned Boxes his comment was: "We tried to use it again, but found it completely broken." We didn't go into any details and I will certainly speak more in detail about with them. But this is what I got after insisting they should use it on daily basis to properly test it.
I've used both virt-manager and Boxes and while you're right that the user experience of virt-manager is pretty bad it's a tool that has never failed on me unlike Boxes (people around me have similar experience) + it covers pretty much all features required by power users. In the last LinuxVoice magazine virt-manager even won the contest of desktop virtualization tools for Linux, so apparently others don't find it so hopeless and not being a viable contender.
And BTW Adding RDP support to Boxes is planned.
Jiri