LXD is now under Canonical

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: LXD is now under Canonical

#5

Post by zuhsetaqi » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 11:37 PM UTC

n3storm wrote: post #2

This is great

Why do you think this is great?

Re: LXD is now under Canonical

#6

Post by re-thc » Tue, Jul 04, 2023, 11:50 PM UTC

veidr wrote: post #4

rendx wrote: post #3

"the team behind Linux Containers regrets that decision"

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

> 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.

Re: LXD is now under Canonical

#7

Post by softirq » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 12:04 AM UTC

re-thc wrote: post #6

veidr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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.

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.

Re: LXD is now under Canonical

#8

Post by psanford » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 12:27 AM UTC

softirq wrote: post #7

re-thc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Snap is not built on top of lxd.

Re: LXD is now under Canonical

#9

Post by rcxdude » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 12:27 AM UTC

re-thc wrote: post #6

veidr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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.

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.

Re: LXD is now under Canonical

#10

Post by psanford » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 12:31 AM UTC

LXD is really great software. The majority of the contributions already come from canonical, so I doubt this will make much difference in the trajectory of the project.

I will say that I prefer running LXD on NixOS hosts where it isn't packaged as a snap. Hopefully canonical doesn't somehow break that.