Talk:OS-level virtualization
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the OS-level virtualization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Computing: Software C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Containers disambiguation
This page needs to be added to the disambiguation page for containers
Add information about Kata Containers
Kata Containers has just released version 1.0. The technology is basically qemu but with all hardware virtualization removed. Intel has been working on it for a couple of ears and it was highly talked about at the big OpenStack meetup in Canada in May 2018. https://katacontainers.io/ --Svintoo 2018-05-29 09:14 (UTC)
Definition of container
While researching for this article, I've noticed different definitions of container depending on what aspects of the technology the authors want to stress. For example, Docker defines a container as "a standard unit of software that packages up code and all its dependencies so the application runs quickly and reliably from one computing environment to another" [1], while this article (before I rewrote the lead) defined a container as an instance of a virtual userspace created thru OS-level virtualization [2]. Since Docker is the most widespread container framework, the lead should give due weight to their definition (which stresses portability). Qzekrom 💬 theythem 18:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Renaming back to “OS-level virtualisation”
I've renamed this back to OS-level virtualisation (shortening "Operating-system-level" to "OS-level" for a shorter title). Container is very Linux-specific terminology (possibly borrowing on the branding of an implementation in Solaris); I've never heard of anyone referring to FreeBSD jail or DragonFly BSD's vkernel as a container; undo an ill-discussed and Linux-specific move of something that's a very well-known operating system paradigm as-is; "container" is probably also a slang, and doesn't describe all levels of "OS-level virtualisation", either; in fact, in the prior discussion itself one of the suggestions was to rename the page either to "containers" or to "jails", which shows a very clear lack of consensus of how this should be called if a rename is to be performed, and confirms that the prior name of "OS-level virtualisation" might as well be more neutral and encyclopaedic. Do not move again unless a clear and sourced consensus is apparent. There needs to be an article about "OS-level virtualisation" for other technologies to reference, which don't use "container" terminology and aren't known as "containers", and where people would be confused by the mentions of "containers". If you think a separate article about containers is warranted, feel free to create such article, but I fail to see clear evidence supporting a rename. MureninC (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @MureninC: I think there was a clear consensus to move to "Container (virtualization)"; while one user did suggest "jail" as an alternative target, I did implicitly address that by saying that "container"
seems to be the most popular name... by far.
If you disagree with the move decision, please use Wikipedia:Move review to contest it instead of reverting unilaterally. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC) - Dekimasu closed the move, so talk to him before starting a formal move review per the directions at WP:MR. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)