[Freedombox-discuss] Should we use LXC in Freedombox?
Quoting Leen Besselink (2013-10-06 13:16:45)
>> I am writing a new program to replace LXC. This program is part of my
>> new software architecture for the FreedomBox and I hope that in the
>> future this architecture will be used in an official FreedomBox
>> release. Can not say much more about this because there are "bold and
>> brave" ideas behind this new architecture that must be tested first.
>> If things work I will write an article about it on my blog.
> While I would prefer if you worked in the open I do have some
> suggestions on what other things/frameworks/ideas people have some
> what recently been doing with containers and container like things for
> 'application deployment'.
> One thing I do wonder is: what is the goal of isolation ? Just to make
> sure applictions can't trample over each other or to prevent attackers
> from gaining access to the rest of the system ('host') or other
> applications. Or maybe for easier deployment ?
> I suggest you look at how http://docker.io/ is using LXC-containers
> and the kinds of features they've created around it (and especially
> what they did not do).
> And also look at OpenShift Origin is doing with SELinux for their
> I would also look at http://criu.org/ and how that might fit into the
> picture in the long run.
Sounds promising all of it.
To become relevant for Freedombox, someone needs to try out techniques
on Debian systems and share publicly their reproducible experiences.
...and then (if approached differently in such tests above) someone
needs to recode to be Debian packages - preferrably by extending
existing packages as much as possible.
You need not be a packaging expert - if interested then try raise your
voice about it here, and someone else might find time and interest in
helping you out.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 490 bytes