41–50 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the language ("the user") and the focus on the GUI, I think this OS is designed more for single-user workstations, rather than multi-user servers. This philosophy of "root by default" is also implemented by Puppy Linux, which was created by the same person.
But what would be the benefit of containers on a single-user workstation?
It feels like Linux and windows are converging into a single OS
If everything is a container, does that mean processes have failed?
I’d personally say that the concept of users and user groups have failed, at least on systems that have only one user.
Hopefully we won't go back to the Win95/98 era of everything running as single user!
Having services run isolated as their own users is not merely a good security mechanics, it provides for a clear and simple mental model of what is what. A clear permissions barrier that's enforced pretty strictly by the OS.
Moreover we see separate user accounts more and more; even on small devices like phones it makes sense to have, for example, separate "private" and "business" accounts.
>does that mean processes have failed?
Nah, that's too general of a take. There are two more specific failures. First up, people fail to realize the present-day crop of containers are re-inventing processes. "Those who do not learn history, etc, etc."
Secondly, there's a significant failure of certain key features (like IP stack, FS handlers, etc. - in general, NAMESPACES) having been provided almost exclusively in kernel, and thusly requiring either superuser access or complex work-arounds (like FUSE) to manage. Plan 9 did it the right way; on P9, processes == containers.
After spending a scant few minutes looking at it, here are the things I like about this project so far: - It has a "How and why are we different" page. In the age of "I made a meta package on top of Ubuntu and called it a new OS", it's refreshing to see a Linux distribution come right out and say "here's what we do that separates us from the other 700". - It actually is different. Recognizing the nigh-uselessness of…
> Puppy heritage
> [...] it must be stated that Easy is also very different, and should not be thought of as a fork of Puppy. Inherited features include the JWM-ROX desktop, menu-hierarchy, run-as-root, SFS layered filesystem, PET packages, and dozens of apps developed for Puppy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the language ("the user") and the focus on the GUI, I think this OS is designed more for single-user workstations, rather than multi-user servers. This philosophy of "root by default" is also implemented by Puppy Linux, which was created by the same person.
But what would be the benefit of containers on a single-user workstation?
It's also much easier to manage each application with it's own root for everything, rather than multiple applications installed into a single root.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A containerized process is a regular process, which just happens to be in a different namespace from the init process.
So your definition of a container is simply the namespaces ? No cgroups ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d personally say that the concept of users and user groups have failed, at least on systems that have only one user.
>the concept of users and user groups have failed Hopefully we won't go back to the Win95/98 era of everything running as single user! Having services run isolated as their own users is not merely a good security mechanics, it provides for a clear and simple mental model of what is what. A clear permissions barrier that's enforced pretty strictly by the OS. Moreover we see separate user accounts more and more; even o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d personally say that the concept of users and user groups have failed, at least on systems that have only one user.
>the concept of users and user groups have failed Hopefully we won't go back to the Win95/98 era of everything running as single user! Having services run isolated as their own users is not merely a good security mechanics, it provides for a clear and simple mental model of what is what. A clear permissions barrier that's enforced pretty strictly by the OS. Moreover we see separate user accounts more and more; even o…
How is that a clear and simple model? Are email or printing users?
I think the whole discussion is futile without having a common understanding of what we are talking about. That is:
- What is a user?
- What is a group?
- What is a role?
- What is an account?
- What is a service?
- What is a job?
- What is a process?
- What is a container?
- What is a namespace?
Moreover, you cannot say whether an abstraction is good or bad without knowing what our goals, use cases or target users are.
TBH, it doesn't look "easy" at all. Plus, why re-inventing the wheel and create yet another containerization system?
I could be misunderstanding, but isn't this actually just a new OS for use in any containerization system, rather than a containerization system itself? This seems more in line with Alpine Linux or Google's Distroless images than something like a new docker