4 ms·
> LXD just feels like Ubuntu to LXC’s Debian. A bit of a funny thing to say, given that effectively the same group of developers work on LXD and LXC -- and mos
by cyphar 6y ago
> LXD just feels like Ubuntu to LXC’s Debian.
A bit of a funny thing to say, given that effectively the same group of developers work on LXD and LXC -- and most are employed by Canonical. LXD was never meant to replace LXC, it solves its own set of problems.
I personally like using LXD because it reduces the need for me to write my own scripts to do trivial container management (and it can manage images and containers on a ZFS pool by itself), but if you're more comfortable with LXC then you do you. But I disagree that LXC is significantly more "low level" than LXD -- it just requires more manual work and the configuration format is more transparent about the container setup, but you ultimately have the same capabilities in LXD.
- gorgoiler 6y agoIn your first paragraph you perfectly describe the Ubuntu/Debian relationship! LXD certainly looks great from the documentation. I would use it if I had dynamic container requirements, or had a lot more containers to manage. One odd decision is that, I think, the lxc command line tool — a significant improvement over the lxc-<thing> suite of commanda that come by default with LXC — only ships with lxd. That has a smell about it that’s a bit funny.
- cyphar 6y agoWell, that's because the "lxc" command-line tool manages LXD -- you can't use the "lxc" commands without using LXD. Arguably it should've been called "lxd-client" or "lxdc" but they probably just felt it was too wordy -- most admins that used LXC and wanted to switch to LXD felt more comfortable typing "lxc <command>". And those who used LXC had no need for a top-level "lxc" command because they used the individual programs directly. Again, since the people working on the projects are the same there's nothing wrong with borrowing the name from the other project. :D