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)
Add information about HP-UX Containers/SRPs
HP-UX Containers (formerly known as Secure Resource Partitions) https://h20392.www2.hpe.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do?productNumber=HP-UX-SRP are the HP-UX OS-level virtualization technology and the counterpart to Solaris zones and AIX WPARs (Workload Partitions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.176.133 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 5 February 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move the page to Container (virtualization) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Operating-system-level virtualization → Container (computing) – "Container" is the more common term today and is more "intuitively understandable" than "operating system–level virtualization". Qzekrom (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This comment came with the template. Original discussion below this line ↓
I propose to rename the page to "Containers" or "Containers technology" or "Containerization" or something similar. The thing is, "Operating system-level virtualization" is quite long, complex and not definitive. Containers, on the other hand, is intuitively understandable. --K001 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Or Jails due FreeBSD started this on 2000 and SUN containers was implemented on 2005. Is good as is "Operating system-level virtualization" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.106.50.48 (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
→ → → Giving this a Bump....Would be good to rename, especially given the increased container notoriety within the entire industry - not just admins (TY Docker, Rkt, Mesos, Kub, etc) which is leading to significant confusion associated with full virtualization (VMWare/Hyper-V). DanSpurling (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this. "Container" seems to be the most popular name for this technology by far. Qzekrom (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Move over Container (virtualization), which redirects to it. The proposed title fails WP:PRECISE: we have Container (computer science) as a redirect to Container (abstract data type), which also has redirects Container class, Container object, and Container (programming). There is also Container Linux. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Good catch, anon. I prefer that. Qzekrom (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Use "Container (virtualization)" per the above discussion, which captured the objection I was going to make, myself, to "Container (computing)"; a disambiguation that just creates another ambiguity is a failure. However, the "(virtualization)" disambig seems WP:PRECISE enough for our purposes. I agree with nom that the current name is absurd; it's a total WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE failure. Virtually no one is going to use the phrase "operating-system-level virtualization" to look for this topic, however accurate it may be as a descriptive definition (and I'm not entirely sure it really is accurate). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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)