Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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'
LXD is now under Canonical
51–60 of 224 posts
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#52LXD 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.
Why LXD over podman? I've found podman to be a pretty great docker lite.
LXD isn't an alternative to podman. Podman is meant to run 'application containers', where each container has just one running process. LXD is meant to run 'system containers' where each container is a full Linux distribution with an init system and (possibly) multiple daemons. LXD containers are like light-weight VMs. Unlike VMs, LXD containers share the host kernel.
You could run podman or other OCI containers inside LXD. I use LXD to test multi node K8s (K3s) on my desktop system.
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sounds like it might go that way though.
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#54Earlier 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.
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]
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#55Stéphane Graber's work is fantastic and LXD had a lot of potential. But Canonical managed to drive me away from it with that abomination called Snap and its auto updates that could bring down a cluster without warning.
Moved completely off ubuntu after snaps were introduced. Sticking with gentoo now because it’s one of a few distros that doesn’t try to control what software you have to use.
This is the worse
>The LXD section on the LinuxContainers community forum will slowly be sunset in favor of the Ubuntu Discourse forum run by Canonical
A lot of useful lxd information are in forum.Stephane and the team is super helpful there.
Also snap auto update kills my containers so I had to put on held.
They also had just fixed a long standing bug that makes rebooting lxd container sometimes fails due to snap messing up with zfs mounts.
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#56LXD 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.
Arch have it packaged as nonsnap too
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#57Very soon Microsoft will acquire Canonical for at least $40 billion. The reasons: * Ubuntu powers the overwhelming majority of Azure workloads (both customer and internal) * Nearly all Linux applications and tooling target Ubuntu first (or at the very least) * Github, VSCode. The missing piece is the actual runtime operating system. Ubuntu. * Canonical employs nearly all the remaining core enterprise open-source deve…
People have been saying this for years already.
Might it happen? Sure.
But nothing seems to have suddenly increased the likelihood of this recently, so I'm not sure where the "very soon" is coming from.
Other than maybe you just personally realised they're not badly aligned.
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#58LXD is really great software. The majority of the contributions already come from canonical, so I doubt this will make much difference in the trajectory of the project. I will say that I prefer running LXD on NixOS hosts where it isn't packaged as a snap. Hopefully canonical doesn't somehow break that.
Why LXD over podman? I've found podman to be a pretty great docker lite.
LXD use case is totally different from podman, k8$ , docker.
It is like building your own digital ocean , for containers (and vms) . It can be used as a container host for docker/podman containers, virtual machine manager for qemu, it is like having your own VPS to put your servers in.
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#59Very soon Microsoft will acquire Canonical for at least $40 billion. The reasons: * Ubuntu powers the overwhelming majority of Azure workloads (both customer and internal) * Nearly all Linux applications and tooling target Ubuntu first (or at the very least) * Github, VSCode. The missing piece is the actual runtime operating system. Ubuntu. * Canonical employs nearly all the remaining core enterprise open-source deve…
> Ubuntu powers the overwhelming majority of Azure workloads
I expect this to shift. Some years ago `FROM ubuntu:something` was a go-to for Dockerfiles when I wasn't feeling fancy with `FROM alpine` or `FROM busybox` (or `FROM scratch`). Today if I need a generic distro base, I'm consciously going with Debian-based images and Ubuntu is never an option anymore (it used to be "Debian, but better", it became "Debian, but worse").
And I strongly suspect I'm very much not alone. So give it a few years while people convert and upgrade stuff and this might be not exactly longer true.
Re: LXD is now under Canonical
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lena Khan wouldn't let Microsoft acquire a paperclip manufacturing plant right now, do you think this merger would ever be allowed?
For anyone else confused, I think the parent comment means Lina Khan. I was struggling to see what a film director had to do with this.
For anyone wondering WTF?, Lina Khan is the head of the US FTC, the crowd that reviews large mergers and similar (also antitrust, monopoly abuses, etc).
Under her leadership, the FTC has started doing the right thing (finally!) and saying "No, not happening!" to some of the proposed mergers in very recent times.