5 ms·

"the team behind Linux Containers regrets that decision"

• veidr 3y ago
  Woah I notice that the signatures on that include Stéphane Graber. It's rather hard to imagine LXD continuing as a going concern without him. Does this mean he regrets the decision, but is going to keep working on LXD, or... does this mean LXD is fucked? -- concerned LXD user
  • re-thc 3y ago
    > does this mean LXD is fucked It is either way. Docker / kubernetes is eating it up. There aren't as many LXD users as they'd hope. Oh and he does work for Canonical.
    • softirq 3y ago
      The point of them owning LXD is to give them total control of the underlying technology they are using for Snaps. Snaps is the play… has nothing to do with kube/docker. It’s actually more of a synonym of ostree and flatpaks.
      • psanford 3y ago
        Snap is not built on top of lxd.
        • rascul 3y ago
          Could it be?
          • type0 3y ago
            Should it be?
            • deleted 3y ago
              [deleted]
        • justinclift 3y ago
          Sounds like it might go that way though.
    • rcxdude 3y ago
      which is a shame, because it works a lot better if you just want lightweight VMs without 5 billion layers of stuff crammed on top.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • MrPowerGamerBR 3y ago
      > Docker / kubernetes is eating it up Is LXD's purpose the same as Docker/Kubernetes? I use both LXD and Docker and to me they are tools that use the same technology (containerzation) but for different purposes. Docker is for stateless containers, used to containerize services. LXD is for stateful containers, used to containerize operating systems. LXD can also run VMs while Docker can't. I think about LXD as a sort of Proxmox alternative (because you can manage LXC containers and VMs with it) instead of a Docker/Kubernetes alternative. In fact, I actually have migrated my systems from Proxmox to Ubuntu Server with Docker, for stateless applications, and LXD, for when I need to containerize an entire OS or VMs for my friends.
      • nine_k 3y ago
        Since Linux containers are just namespace tricks, a kind of glorified chroot, what does it mean that you run VMs from within containers? Sincerely curious'
        • justinclift 3y ago
          https://ubuntu.com/blog/lxd-virtual-machines-an-overview https://ubuntu.com/blog/lxd-virtual-machines-an-overview
        • veidr 3y ago
          I don't think OP means running VM from within containers (although, who knows, I mean I guess you could). LXD provides a management layer that treats containers and VMs (libvirt/KVM/QEMU VMs) mostly the same. So commands like this work on both containers and VMs: lxc start fedora-desktop lxc mv pi-hole other-machine:pi-hole etc
        • unixhero 3y ago
          Yes they are. And they work very well and can be used in production
      • re-thc 3y ago
        > Is LXD's purpose the same as Docker/Kubernetes? It did occupy the same space including Proxmox. Back then KVM, Proxmox, VMWare, OpenVZ, LXD, etc were all ways of virtualization. Whilst it's not exactly the same purpose most companies have or have been shifting to docker and kubernetes and in the cloud vs running their own VM infrastructure. > Docker is for stateless containers Tell that to people that run databases with docker and kubernetes. It is a thing and even commercial products are built that way.
    • v3ss0n 3y ago
      That confusion makes lxd underrated. LXD isn't like docker or k8s. It's totally different use case.lets see this way If docker and k8s are fighter jets and bomber role , LXD is the aircraft carrier.
    • radiator 3y ago
      He no longer works for Canonical, it seems.
  • botanical 3y ago
    Canonical already has the most number of commits in the LXD repo, so I doubt much changes.