[coreboot] [GSoC] Coreboot Spice Payload

Hao Li lihao at mprc.pku.edu.cn
Wed Mar 23 16:28:29 CET 2011

Hi Leandro,

I think a simple picture describing your idea would definitely help people understand the benefit of integrating Spice into coreboot. I am not saying Spice should not be integrated into coreboot, since the coreboot's payload mechanism allows you to integrate whatever applications you want to. 

BTW, I am still confused about your description on "really poor piece of hardware". What piece of hardware are you referring to? If the hardware is so poor, then how could that hardware support Spice? Even the RDP, a remote rendering protocol as your saying, requires hardware with at least several hundreds of MHZ frequency if you want to have a comfortable experience. But I think this is ok since even current mobile internet devices are capable of running complex software stacks.

- Hao Li

-----Original Message-----
From: Leandro Dorileo [mailto:ldorileo at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:41 PM
To: Hao Li
Cc: coreboot at coreboot.org; marcj303 at gmail.com
Subject: Re: Re: [coreboot] [GSoC] Coreboot Spice Payload

Hi Hao

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Hao Li <lihao at mprc.pku.edu.cn> wrote:
> Hi Leandro,
> Are you talking about implementing the Spice protocol client in the
> coreboot?

Yes, correct. I`m talking about implementing the Spice protocol - with
that, surely I mean the client piece.

> Does it rely on QEMU?

Not exactly the client but QEMU is a vital component of the
architecture, it`s the user mode component for kvm hipervisor. I
mentioned QEMU to show the virtualization stack is already capable of
running spice "aware" clients.

> I think the scenario you are talking about,
> or Spice protocol itself, it quite similar to RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol)
> protocol, isn't it?

Maybe on the remote nature, but I`m sure it differs a lot on some
other aspects. RDP is purely a remote rendering protocol and Spice is
a remote virtual desktop one. Spice includes in the architecture
optimizations for virtualized operating systems which is the reason
for the specified VDI layer.

> In the typical client-server model, for example, a
> Network Computer (with limited hardware resource) running a tiny Linux
> allows you to "rdesktop" to any server supporting RDP protocol.

Well, this is not a typical client-server model. It includes
components not necessarily present in the "typical" remote desktop
scenario. We`re running an operating system in a virtualized
environment with its capabilities and specific features, the client
for example doesn`t connect directly to the guest operating system but
a middle ware.

> Maybe you
> need to think of a more appealing scenario. :)

If we see a simple client running in a "proper" operating system we
realize that even using the spice protocol we can have rich
clients(and we do) it`s just a matter of protocol it may be RDP, Spice
or any other, but we still need a full OS running in the client side,
if we have all our heavy CPU tasks running in another computer why a
full operating system running?

When I say we can run a desktop in a cheap piece of hardware I mean
"really poor piece of hardware" things that wouldn`t be capable of
running a MS Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, whatever it is.

You can still ask yourself, why some one would need something like
this? well, some companies may save a lot of money with that. I see it
as an interesting option, eliminating many dollar that would be
invested in hundreds or thousands of desktop computers - it`s just a
matter of option. :-)

Thank you for your questions. Best regards.

Leandro Dorileo

More information about the coreboot mailing list