On Friday 30 January 2004 01:13, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > n Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:34:00PM -0500, Igor Seletskiy wrote: > > Hi Herbert, > > > > My name is Igor Seletskiy. I own psoft (maker of freeVPS). I wander what > > are your thoughts about merging linux-vserver & freeVPS? > > I believe at some points freeVPS is more advanced then linux-vserver > > (like our new memory accounting module, new network routing, also, & > > mount tables), on the other hand - I am pretty sure that there are bunch > > of places where linux-vserver is more advanced. > > I spun off freeVPS when Jacques virtually stopped releasing anything. > > Yet, seeing how linux-vserver took off - I wander what your feelings are > > about merging projects & working together. > > I always tried to keep contact to Alexey Lyashkov, who, > if I'm not mistaken, started and maintains the vserver > branch, now known as freeVPS (I wonder if that information > is incomplete?) first is request from PSoft about create vserver pachset for RH kernels.
> > I'm forwarding this to the mailing list, because I think > it is of interest for the community, and I hope you do not > take this as a personal offense (which isn't intended). > > some facts (as I see them): > > - freeVPS has some features the current linux-vserver > implementation lacks (memory, networking, ...) > > - freeVPS is limited to a certain kernel (RH 2.4.18) > and distribution (RedHat 7.3) and I assume arch > (i386) too this kernel can be instaled to RH 8.0 and you know about it. not forget. ask Matt. I specialy not create patch for RH 9.0 because it been not supported in near future. Other RH kernels can be supported easy, but i use UML for kernel development and last RH kernel not capability with it. Also i don`t waste time for analyze changes in new kernel and merge to freevps only security/stability fixes. You remember many bugs in memory subsystem 2.4.23 ? i don`t have it FreeVPS. About arch other then i386 - I have only one arch specific code in container.h it can be ported easy to other platforms after request, but i see primary using I386 arch. > - the License of tools and kernel patches is not > obvious to me, although kernel patches basically > default to GPL > > - the changes freeVPS made to the RH kernel are very > intrusive and might introduce various issues which > need some reviewing and a lot of testing > > my opinion: > > I'm convinced that 'working together' in a well defined > way, and even 'merging' various parts, provided that they > are covered by an open and free license, could be very > beneficial for both projects, but I currently do not see > a simple way to do that (ideas welcome ;) ... > > That said, I'm not convinced that it can't be done, it > just needs some work on both sides and especially some > official statements from your side, what how and why > psoft is/will be involved in this (well there is a > commercial product H-Sphere, right?) > > btw, linux-vserver development is free, and as I said > many times, patches are always welcome, so if your aim > is to 'improve' the quality of a free linux-vserver > implementation, publishing patches agains recent dev. > versions would be a great way to do that ... freevps also free :) release version and snapshots uploaded to www.freevps.com and supported by my team :) -- With best regards, Alex _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
