Literally at the top of the docs it says it's in Beta. I don't think you have to think too hard to figure out that seamless integration is the goal but they aren't there yet.
That seems fair, but then it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless, other than a beta integration.
A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless
VMware or VirtualBox running within the VMware/Vbox window, as opposed to VMware Unity or VirtualBox Seamless mode. Those allow you to have a window from the guest VM appear on your desktop just like it's a native application running on the host.
That's what seamless means in this context. It's a specific feature, not a general descriptor of your experience with the software as a whole.
A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs.
> what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless
That doesn't make sense to me. Seamlessness isn't an essential feature of any integration, just those that would lend themselves to zero-config deployments. I think the vast majority would require some form of configuration, either sharing credentials, or configuring resource limitations, devices, files and folders...
Then why say that it is that? It makes much more sense to me to say "The project is a beta that does X Y and Z and we hope it will eventually become this amazing seamless hassle-free thing." I don't get why projects don't distinguish future aspirations from present accomplishments.
