Re: qjail fork attribution was Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique (fwd)

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:00:44 -0400, Stephen Cook wrote:
 > On 4/1/2013 5:23 AM, Ian Smith wrote:

Actually, I forwarded a message that Joe  posted 
to -jail and -ports.  Proper attribution is what this issue's all about.

It's been pointed out to me privately that cross-posting is frowned upon 
in FreeBSD lists and I would usually concur, but this matter started in 
-questions and I believe that it's an issue of some public importance.

So, it was Joe who wrote:

 > > One does not have to be a lawyer to know the lack of any license verbiage
 > > embedded in computer programs released to the public becomes property of
 > > public
 > > domain forever. Putting license verbiage on your next port version is
 > > unenforceable because it's already property of public domain.

 > I don't know enough about the original disagreement to comment on it, but
 > this part is completely untrue. IANAL but I can use Google and common sense.
 > 
 > Under the Berne Convention, if there is no notice included with a
 > copyrightable work, it defaults to "all rights reserved". Until you receive
 > explicit permission, or a permissive license is included, it is assumed that
 > you *cannot* legally copy or derive from that work.

This certainly appears to be the concensus view.

 > So, if there is no license at all attached to ezjail, as you say, you are
 > infringing copyright. Luckily for you, the ezjail web page declares it to be
 > licensed as Beer Ware after all.

Hm, let's look at a Beerware licence.  There are 106 of them in /usr/src 
at 8.2-RELEASE; here's an apropos one from /usr/src/usr.sbin/jail/jail.8

.\"
.\" Copyright (c) 2000, 2003 Robert N. M. Watson
.\" Copyright (c) 2008 James Gritton
.\" All rights reserved.
.\"
   [.. standard two-clause BSD licence and disclaimer, followed by ..]
.\" 

.\" "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
.\"  wrote this file.  As long as you retain this notice you
.\" can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
.\" this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return.   Poul-Henning Kamp
.\" 


"As long as you retain this notice" is the issue, at least in spirit;
that is, as long as qjail's original authorship is properly attributed.  

As far as I can tell, Dirk is (rightfully) insisting only upon that.

 > Nothing personal, I just tend to correct people when they make up laws,
 > especially after a long enough period where I didn't get to criticize
 > anyone's grammar. :-)

Indeed.  Feel free to criticise mine, modulo unAmerican spelling :)

cheers, Ian
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: qjail fork attribution was Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique (fwd)

[Stephen Cook]

On 4/1/2013 5:23 AM, Ian Smith wrote:

One does not have to be a lawyer to know the lack of any license verbiage
embedded in computer programs released to the public becomes property of public
domain forever. Putting license verbiage on your next port version is
unenforceable because it's already property of public domain.


I don't know enough about the original disagreement to comment on it, 
but this part is completely untrue. IANAL but I can use Google and 
common sense.


Under the Berne Convention, if there is no notice included with a 
copyrightable work, it defaults to "all rights reserved". Until you 
receive explicit permission, or a permissive license is included, it is 
assumed that you *cannot* legally copy or derive from that work.


So, if there is no license at all attached to ezjail, as you say, you 
are infringing copyright. Luckily for you, the ezjail web page declares 
it to be licensed as Beer Ware after all.


Nothing personal, I just tend to correct people when they make up laws, 
especially after a long enough period where I didn't get to criticize 
anyone's grammar. :-)



-- Stephen

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: qjail fork attribution was Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique (fwd)

[Ian Smith]

Posted so people following -questions can gather what Joe Barbish is 
fishing for in the present thread regarding copyright and licensing.

cheers, Ian

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:26:16 -0400
From: Fbsd8 
To: Dirk Engling 
Cc: po...@freebsd.org, freebsd-j...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re:qjail fork attribution was Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available
for critique

Dirk Engling wrote:
> Dear JoeB,
> 
> since you just threatened me via private email to expose my evil plans
> of preventing your ubercool project from taking FreeBSD by storm, I
> would like to comment on your views and your project publicly
> 
> On 22.03.13 23:12, Fbsd8 wrote:
> 
> > On the subject of qjail being a fork of ezjail, of course it is.
> 
> So, you've decided to run along with an existing code base to fork a
> project. Congratulations.
> 
> You surely must have had reasons, like including features that the
> original author told you never to implement. Like you found the project
> abandoned and no one replied to your requests.
> 
> Well, except you did not. I found out about your fork by chance, after
> someone directed my attention to your constant bragging and nagging.
> Why, after all, would you ever feel the need to talk to me directly
> about the fork? After all, what common interests might we possibly share?
> 
> So I think the only reason to rip off ezjails code was to boost your ego
> with some impressive looking column of shell script you obviously had
> trouble understanding, which comes as no surprise as you _still_ seem to
> have trouble grasping even the basic concepts of shell scripting:
> 
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2013-January/248558.html
> 
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2013-January/247723.html
> 
> Reading this I find it very disturbing that you try to lure users into
> using your bumbling hack that pokes in one of the core security features
> of FreeBSD. To put it more plainly: What you do is dangerous. Stop doing
> it. You're putting your users at risk.
> 
> > British member concluded that the author of ezjail must be British based
> > solely on the spelling of the flavour directory. He also convinced us
> > that his Beerware license was British humor, a joke, and should not be
> > taken serous. In our review of other jail ports we did not see this
> 
> Then tell your "British member" to read up on some contemporary
> literature, maybe Wikipedia
> 
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware
> 
> so he has a chance to understand what connects Beerware and FreeBSD. Do
> not use your confused team member as pretext to violate the terms of
> license you obviously found by yourself and chose to ignore.
> 
> > file. It was inserted in the front like they have. We though that was
> > how you make software opensource which was the intention. There are no
> > formal copyright documents; it's just a extrapolation from the FreeBSD
> > comments.
> 
> Besides completely failing to see the point what the difference between
> open source and public domain is, you do not have the slightest idea,
> what a community of people sharing their code as open source is about.
> 
> The simple fact that you resort to Windows and IIS to serve your web
> site should have warned me, that you do not actually have any connection
> to the scene besides your gimme-gimme-gimme attitude.
> 
> To make my point clear: Open source software is about attribution. For
> multiple reasons, most important to me: getting to socialize. Beerware
> is not so much about getting the actual beer, but to have a chance to
> sit together and talk with people sharing common interests. Now you rob
> me of the chance to ever hear from people using my code disguised as yours.
> 
> Another reason, of course, is the pride we take in spending nearly ten
> years on ezjail and we definitely do not like some script kiddie running
> around adorn himself with plumes plucked from our asses.
> 
> > section is not appropriate to include qjail under Freebsd opensource
> > type of license, then we can change the comments to say "totally free to
> > do as you wish as opensource" and leave it at that. If something else is
> > needed, please inform what that is by private email. To continue this
> > this subject in public is not appropriate. Please respect our wish in
> > this matter.
> 
> No, I will not respect your wishes, as you chose to ignore mine. You are
> not totally free to do as you wish with the ezjail authors' code and you
> can not grant that rights to someone else.
> 
> Regarding your fork: I can not and I will not prevent forks from
> happeni

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique (fwd)

[Ian Smith]

Joe, your mailer dropped -questions from the ccs on your response. 
Fixed, Ian

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:12:18 -0400
From: Fbsd8 
To: freebsd-j...@freebsd.org
Cc: Ian Smith , Dirk Engling 
Subject: Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:30 +0100, Dirk Engling wrote:
>  > On 18.03.13 20:16, s...@tormail.org wrote:
>  >  > > to configure things themselves. In my experience, ezjail is a much
> better
>  > > solution. I also see that you are the maintainer/author of qjail and like
>  > > to shovel your opinion as the only solution, both in this "rewrite" and
>  > > all over the FreeBSD forums.
>  >  > Taking a look at the qjail code I can not help to notice several odd
>  > similarities with the ezjail-admin script, down to the very basic bail
>  > out routines. I would not go so far to claim it was just a global
>  > search/replace job but to me the code looks familiar enough to find the
>  >  > # Copyright  2010,  Qjail project. All rights reserved.
>  >  > offensive. I am usually quite open with the license of my software,
>  > beerware is as permissive as it gets. I just can not take some script
>  > kiddie right out copying my code verbatim and selling it as his, not
>  > even acknowledging me as the original author.
>  >  > Anyone here with suggestions how to properly react to this kind of
> "fork"?
> 
> Yes.  Publicity.  Making sure the FreeBSD community gets to finds out.
> 
> You may be polite and un-selfserving enough to not go so far Dirk, but I will.
> Huge swathes of qjail are direct copies of your code, in most cases only with
> the names of the variables changed from ezjail_* to qjail_*.  I found it cute
> renaming 'flavour' to the American spelling.
> 
> Anyone looking at bin/qjail from qjail-2.1.tbz alongside the latest
> ezjail-admin (mine downloaded from your cvsweb) cannot fail to notice
> within the first couple of screens.  Sure there are changes, additions and
> deletions, but to fail to acknowledge the original authorship of this code,
> and the implication that Joe Barbish (aka 'Qjail project') is its original
> author is entirely outrageous; not ethical, even if legal.
> 
> To that end I'm cross-posting this to -questions, where Mr Barbish has also
> posted about his proposed "rewrite" of Chapter 16 of the Handbook, which is
> nothing but a huge and poorly written manual for 'the qjail way', with its
> peculiar assumptions and unique "jailcell" terminology.  "Fourth Generation",
> no less!
> 
> The idea that the "doc gang" would entertain the idea of removing all of the
> worthy content of the present Chapter 16 - even if it does need some updating
> - and replace it with this effort is laughable, yet stranger things have
> happened if there's any disconnect between developers and documenters ..
> witness the Handbook firewalls section, by Joe Barbish.
> 
> cheers, Ian
> 

Boy this simple critique request sure has gotten out of hand. So lets set the
record straight.

On the subject ezjail not being referenced in the document like it is in the
current version of the online handbook is just a writing content error. The
document being critiqued is the first public draft. Pointing out over sights
like not included ezjail in that section is the type of constructive feedback
that is desired. Any inference it was done on purpose is just crazy. When it
comes to the question of the handbook jail chapter needing updating, A member of
the document team has already offered to partner up with me to get it added to
the handbook as fast as possible. To me that means the document team is already
aware the current handbook jail chapter is outdated and has just been waiting
for someone to write a update which is just what I did. If you people have a
beef with that, take it up with the document team not me. If any of you think
you can do a better job then NOW is the time to step up or shut up.

On the subject of qjail being a fork of ezjail, of course it is.
Qjail was developed by the qjail project team who are a group of FreeBSD users
who live around Angeles City, Philippines. Of the seven members 2 are foreigners
living in the area, one American and one British. Our British member concluded
that the author of ezjail must be British based solely on the spelling of the
flavour directory. He also convinced us that his Beerware license was British
humor, a joke, and should not be taken serous. In our review of other jail ports
we did not see this Beerware license again or for that matter, see it in any of
the 5000+ ports we looked at or use. So the group coincided to the British
members v

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Alejandro Imass]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Ian Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:21:29 -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Ian Smith  wrote:
>  > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:30 +0100, Dirk Engling wrote:
>

[...]

>> mentioned anywhere in this new proposal and why it isn't mentioned in
>> the current handbook either under in section "16.5.2 High-Level
>> Administrative Tools in the FreeBSD Ports Collection". If there is
>> __any__ tool that should be mentioned in the jails chapter it is

[..]

> Actually, ezjail has been explicitly mentioned in '16.6 Application of
> Jails' http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/jails-application.html since
> revision 30226 by danger, Mon May 28 20:02:46 2007 UTC, which section
> was just 6 weeks ago updated with a (preceding) similar port reference
> to qjail: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/doc?view=revision&revision=40900
>

Never seen it before. First time I read about service jails it wasn't
there. Further to my point doesn't it make more sense to mention them
under "16.5.2 High-Level Administrative Tools in the FreeBSD Ports
Collection" or in both places?

[...]

>
> There have been about 20 messages in freebsd-jail@ referring to ezjail
> this year so far before this thread, as in previous years; try browsing
> the archives from http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-jail/
>

I posted on the wrong list then ;-)

Subscribing today, thanks!

-- 
Alejandro Imass
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:21:29 -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote:
 > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Ian Smith  wrote:
 > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:30 +0100, Dirk Engling wrote:

[.. also chopping mercilessly ..]

 > >  > # Copyright  2010,  Qjail project. All rights reserved.
 > >  >
 > >  > offensive. I am usually quite open with the license of my software,
 > >  > beerware is as permissive as it gets. I just can not take some script
 > >  > kiddie right out copying my code verbatim and selling it as his, not
 > >  > even acknowledging me as the original author.
 > >  >
 > >  > Anyone here with suggestions how to properly react to this kind of 
 > > "fork"?
 > >
 > > Yes.  Publicity.  Making sure the FreeBSD community gets to finds out.
 > >
 > 
 > [...]
 > 
 > > To that end I'm cross-posting this to -questions, where Mr Barbish has
 > > also posted about his proposed "rewrite" of Chapter 16 of the Handbook,
 > > which is nothing but a huge and poorly written manual for 'the qjail
 > > way', with its peculiar assumptions and unique "jailcell" terminology.
 > > "Fourth Generation", no less!
 > >
 > 
 > +1
 > 
 > Thank you Ian for cross-posting here.
 > 
 > The first thing I did when I got the new chapter for review was search
 > for the work EzJail and I was curious as to why EzJail is not
 > mentioned anywhere in this new proposal and why it isn't mentioned in
 > the current handbook either under in section "16.5.2 High-Level
 > Administrative Tools in the FreeBSD Ports Collection". If there is
 > __any__ tool that should be mentioned in the jails chapter it is
 > EzJail because it's really easy to use and does a damn good job.

Actually, ezjail has been explicitly mentioned in '16.6 Application of 
Jails' http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/jails-application.html since 
revision 30226 by danger, Mon May 28 20:02:46 2007 UTC, which section 
was just 6 weeks ago updated with a (preceding) similar port reference 
to qjail: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/doc?view=revision&revision=40900

[..]

 > NOW some things start to make sense to me, when I posted a problem
 > with EzJail here last year that very few people, if any, knew what I
 > was talking about. An how could they? if it's not mentioned anywhere
 > in the handbook or that jail man page(s).

man pages aren't an appropriate place to recommend particular ports; 
there are others, and there will be more.  The above are mentioned in 
the handbook page in the context of simpler alternatives to following 
the more detailed procedures presented to actually teach one how jail 
technology may be implemented, which - in my view - is the Good Stuff.

There have been about 20 messages in freebsd-jail@ referring to ezjail 
this year so far before this thread, as in previous years; try browsing 
the archives from http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-jail/

OTOH, I've seen no prior posts in jail@ about qjail before this thread.

cheers, Ian
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Alejandro Imass]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Ian Smith  wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:30 +0100, Dirk Engling wrote:
>  > On 18.03.13 20:16, s...@tormail.org wrote:
>  >
>  > > to configure things themselves. In my experience, ezjail is a much better
>  > > solution. I also see that you are the maintainer/author of qjail and like
>  > > to shovel your opinion as the only solution, both in this "rewrite" and
>  > > all over the FreeBSD forums.


[...]

>  >
>  > # Copyright  2010,  Qjail project. All rights reserved.
>  >
>  > offensive. I am usually quite open with the license of my software,
>  > beerware is as permissive as it gets. I just can not take some script
>  > kiddie right out copying my code verbatim and selling it as his, not
>  > even acknowledging me as the original author.
>  >
>  > Anyone here with suggestions how to properly react to this kind of "fork"?
>
> Yes.  Publicity.  Making sure the FreeBSD community gets to finds out.
>

[...]

> To that end I'm cross-posting this to -questions, where Mr Barbish has
> also posted about his proposed "rewrite" of Chapter 16 of the Handbook,
> which is nothing but a huge and poorly written manual for 'the qjail
> way', with its peculiar assumptions and unique "jailcell" terminology.
> "Fourth Generation", no less!
>

+1

Thank you Ian for cross-posting here.

The first thing I did when I got the new chapter for review was search
for the work EzJail and I was curious as to why EzJail is not
mentioned anywhere in this new proposal and why it isn't mentioned in
the current handbook either under in section "16.5.2 High-Level
Administrative Tools in the FreeBSD Ports Collection". If there is
__any__ tool that should be mentioned in the jails chapter it is
EzJail because it's really easy to use and does a damn good job.

We've been using it in production __extensively__ since about 2010 and
the one and only issue we've had was probably related to some sort of
border-line bug with nullfs which has never happened since. We
currently run half a dozen servers with anywhere from 12 to 24 jails
each and we've only had a single isolated incident and it wasn't even
related directly to EzJail. We use flavours extensively and constantly
derive jails from others and move jails between servers, much like if
we were using VMWare; it's that easy, or easier, and works every time.

NOW some things start to make sense to me, when I posted a problem
with EzJail here last year that very few people, if any, knew what I
was talking about. An how could they? if it's not mentioned anywhere
in the handbook or that jail man page(s).

In fact, looking back at this thread[1] I can see that great deal of
misunderstanding an unnecessary confusion could have been that the
term "EzJail" meant nothing to most people commenting on the thread.
When I commented the problem to Dirk he immediately recognized that it
could have been a problem with nullfs and so did "jb"[2], who not only
immediately thought of nulls, but actually found some bugs that were
very similar to my situation[3], and which is BTW still open AFAICT.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that it seems quite odd that
EzJail is not very publicized and I would like to see it prominently
mentioned in the handbook and man pages as a great tool for Jail
administration.

Thanks,

--
Alejandro Imass

[1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-April/240468.html
 http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-April/240501.html
 http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-April/240551.html
[2] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-April/240566.html
 http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-April/240569.html
[3] PR#147420
 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/147420
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:30 +0100, Dirk Engling wrote:
 > On 18.03.13 20:16, s...@tormail.org wrote:
 > 
 > > to configure things themselves. In my experience, ezjail is a much better
 > > solution. I also see that you are the maintainer/author of qjail and like
 > > to shovel your opinion as the only solution, both in this "rewrite" and
 > > all over the FreeBSD forums.
 > 
 > Taking a look at the qjail code I can not help to notice several odd
 > similarities with the ezjail-admin script, down to the very basic bail
 > out routines. I would not go so far to claim it was just a global
 > search/replace job but to me the code looks familiar enough to find the
 > 
 > # Copyright  2010,  Qjail project. All rights reserved.
 > 
 > offensive. I am usually quite open with the license of my software,
 > beerware is as permissive as it gets. I just can not take some script
 > kiddie right out copying my code verbatim and selling it as his, not
 > even acknowledging me as the original author.
 > 
 > Anyone here with suggestions how to properly react to this kind of "fork"?

Yes.  Publicity.  Making sure the FreeBSD community gets to finds out.

You may be polite and un-selfserving enough to not go so far Dirk, but 
I will.  Huge swathes of qjail are direct copies of your code, in most 
cases only with the names of the variables changed from ezjail_* to 
qjail_*.  I found it cute renaming 'flavour' to the American spelling.

Anyone looking at bin/qjail from qjail-2.1.tbz alongside the latest 
ezjail-admin (mine downloaded from your cvsweb) cannot fail to notice
within the first couple of screens.  Sure there are changes, additions 
and deletions, but to fail to acknowledge the original authorship of 
this code, and the implication that Joe Barbish (aka 'Qjail project') is 
its original author is entirely outrageous; not ethical, even if legal.

To that end I'm cross-posting this to -questions, where Mr Barbish has 
also posted about his proposed "rewrite" of Chapter 16 of the Handbook, 
which is nothing but a huge and poorly written manual for 'the qjail 
way', with its peculiar assumptions and unique "jailcell" terminology.  
"Fourth Generation", no less!

The idea that the "doc gang" would entertain the idea of removing all of 
the worthy content of the present Chapter 16 - even if it does need some 
updating - and replace it with this effort is laughable, yet stranger 
things have happened if there's any disconnect between developers and 
documenters .. witness the Handbook firewalls section, by Joe Barbish.

cheers, Ian
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Jov]

useful doc，greate job！

find a mybe copy/past mistake in 16.7.1：


> *exec.stop*   This is the normal script used to *start *the jail.


should be：
*exec.stop*   This is the normal script used to *stop *the jail.

regards,

2013/3/19 Fbsd8 

> To all interested parties;
>
> I have completed the final draft of the total rewrite of FreeBSD's
> handbook Chapter 16 on Jails.
>
> Before submitting my work for submission to the documentation group for
> insertion in the handbook I am looking for critique of the work to find
> errors in concept, wrong use of words, or anything to make it better.
>
> All feedback welcomed.
>
> Use this URL to access it  
> http://www.jails.a1poweruser.**com/
>
>
> Thank You.
>
> __**_
> freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@**
> freebsd.org "
>



-- 
Jov
blog: http:amutu.com/blog 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Andreas Nilsson]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Robert Huff  wrote:

>
> Isaac (.ike) Levy writes:
>
> >  Pretty heavy cross-posting here, could you perhaps reign this in
> >  to the freebsd-jail@ list, where it can be discussed in-context?
> >  This will help keep the noise down.
>
> It will also keep down the signal from people who use or are
> interested in jails, but do not (and do not plan to) subscribe to
> that list.
>
Respectfully,
>
>
> Robert Huff
>
>
Great! There really was a need to modernize the handbook with regards to
jails. Since I'm not a native English speaker I'll leave grammar and
spelling for those who are ;)

My first impressions are along the lines:
To much scripts, to few examples/scenarios. Our users are smart, show them
what can be accomplished with "high-level" config, leave minutiae to some
part of the appendix.

Also the exclusion of zfs and vnet is surprising, as those really make
jails shine, imo ( although jails really need to be thought about the
"gray" area visa-vi networking in rc-scripts that vnet provides ). How
about the resource control, which further makes jails really spiffy.

I would have preferred top-level separation of the different methods, ie
after the introduction there was one "track" manual, one for old-school
rc-, one for new-school rc- and one for jail.conf-style jails.


More specifically I agree with Isaac Levy's, especially in regards to the
"jail cell" terminology:

"16.1 Synopsis": the term jail cell is used, long before being defined.

"16.2 Introduction": Mentioning jail cells in a historic contest is imho a
"blatant" lie ( they were never known as such ). As far as I know, no
official documentation has called them cells, either. That does not mean
that it's not an appropriate term, though. As a contrast there is Solaris
vocabulary of zones ( "cells" ) and global zone ( "jail system" ). In this
regard I prefer the solaris one.
Most importantly, a large chunk of 16.2 would imo fit much better as a
"history"-appendix. Current and new users don't need to know and consider
the limitations of earlier implementations. The "generations" talked about
could perhaps be quantified with a release version :)

There are, as stated by Isaac Levy, many (good) utils for managing jails.
Why the focus on qjail? I also think that most of the strong points of
jails are rendered moot without, in order, zfs and vimage. Linux jails
might also interest quite a few people.

Best regards
Andreas
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Robert Huff]

Isaac (.ike) Levy writes:

>  Pretty heavy cross-posting here, could you perhaps reign this in
>  to the freebsd-jail@ list, where it can be discussed in-context?
>  This will help keep the noise down.

It will also keep down the signal from people who use or are
interested in jails, but do not (and do not plan to) subscribe to
that list.

Respectfully,


Robert Huff

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Isaac (.ike) Levy]

Pretty heavy cross-posting here, could you perhaps reign this in to the 
freebsd-jail@ list, where it can be discussed in-context?  This will help keep 
the noise down.

On Mar 18, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:

> To all interested parties;
> 
> I have completed the final draft of the total rewrite of FreeBSD's handbook 
> Chapter 16 on Jails.
> 
> Before submitting my work for submission to the documentation group for 
> insertion in the handbook I am looking for critique of the work to find 
> errors in concept, wrong use of words, or anything to make it better.
> 
> All feedback welcomed.
> 
> Use this URL to access it  http://www.jails.a1poweruser.com/
> 
> 
> Thank You.

Wow, overall that's really quite cool.

- Do you have a rough timeframe for when you want feedback?  (I would like to 
give this the time it deserves).

--
Feedback right off the bat, (please tell me if I'm off track here):

- After a short skim- I do not believe the qjail utilities referenced are 
appropriate for the FreeBSD handbook.  There are many 3rd party approaches to 
handling/managing jails, some of them with quite long histories and loyal user 
bases- it is impractical and not appropriate to try to cover any/all of them 
here.

- The "Jail Cell" vocabulary is a serious departure- and may create some 
confusion- I'll read thoroughly to get your context right.  In what I 
understand to be the majority of uses, it's confusing to think of the hardware 
host as the 'jail' and the jailed instance as the 'cell'.

- The references and history cite some works, but do not cite the original (and 
possibly most important) document on jailing, 
http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/papers/jail/jail.ps.gz

- There are a number of common lexical errors right off the bat, (There instead 
of Their), etc…

--
I look foreword to reading this on my subway commute this week-

Best,
.ike


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

[Fbsd8]

To all interested parties;

I have completed the final draft of the total rewrite of FreeBSD's 
handbook Chapter 16 on Jails.


Before submitting my work for submission to the documentation group for 
insertion in the handbook I am looking for critique of the work to find 
errors in concept, wrong use of words, or anything to make it better.


All feedback welcomed.

Use this URL to access it  http://www.jails.a1poweruser.com/


Thank You.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"