On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Michael Dexter

> On 1/23/14 8:01 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> > Except for the consoles petitecloud does it much more smoothly...
> May I kindly suggest that you not use this list for PR or to slam the
> work of others?
> Michael

1. My comment was a complement not a criticism (the consoles likely make it
a better script functionality wise then petitecloud's [see below]).  I was
only offering an alternative approach which is to generate it as needed
thus avoiding the need for conditionals (since this is the method
petitecloud uses it is highly unlikely our scripts are at all portable
except as starter scripts for someone to hand modify).

2. I was responding to his request for if anyone had anything better and
stating that from a control flow (and control flow only) POV ours are
slightly (and only slightly) better.  But the need to have console far out
ways that (our scripts do not attempt to give console access except during
OS install).    I suspect that our goals are also quiet different in that
Craig is likely looking for something that is meant to be used locally such
as a NAS and the owner will thus always have console access.   PetiteCloud
makes the assumption that the most typical use of virtualization is cloud
computing and in this case local access is often impossible.  This means
any console access has to allow for remote operation.  Like I said in an
other thread I think the only long term solution to this problem is to add
VNC to bhyve.

Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 

Reply via email to