Quoting Tamas Papp ([email protected]): > Ouch, yes lxd. > > As far as I understand it's going to be very soon at least as stable > as lxc is now, right?
lxd doesn't replace lxc, it uses the lxc go bindings. It's taking the 'lxc api' we've had for a few years, and exporting it over a REST api, plus adding a new (cleaned up) command line which is a client of the REST api. But yes I want to be able to use it myself asap so for the very basic functionality I watn it to be stable asap :) > And my understanding is that you spend your efforts on lxd, lxc will > not improve much, is that correct? I don't think that's correct. I'm spending time getting the base lxd functionality off the ground right now, but I intend to keep working on lxc more than on lxd. There's plenty to be done - which is needed for lxd as much as for lxc - like getting systemd in containers and getting lxc on systemd hosts all working seamlessly, etc. Now, you say "lxc will not improve much" - I have my own list of things I want to get done, but if there are things you feel need to be done in lxc, perhaps we should be building a list, prioritizing it, and coming up with a decisive list of things we consider crucial for 2.0. -serge _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
