On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:50:02 +0100
Herbert Poetzl [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

Herbert Poetzl [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho 
and waste our time instead of doing things.

quoted

quoted

well, IMHO better talk (and think) first, then implement
something ... not the other way round, and then start
fixing up the mess ...

Well we need a bit of both.

hmm, are 'we' in a hurry here?

until recently, 'Linux' (mainline) didn't even want
to hear about OS Level virtualization, now there
is a rush to quickly get 'something' in, not knowing
or caring if it is usable at all?

It's actually happening quite gradually and carefully.

I think there are a lot of 'potential users' for
this kind of virtualization, and so 'we' can test
almost all aspects outside of mainline, and once
we know the stuff works as expected, then we can
integrate it ...

the UTS namespace was something 'we all' had already
implemented in this (or a very similar) way, and in
one or two interations, it should actually work as 
expected. nevertheless, it was one of the simplest
spaces ...

we do not yet know the details for the IPC namespace,
as IPC is not that easy to check as UTS, and 'we'
haven't gotten real world feedback on that yet ...

We are very dependent upon all stakeholders including yourself to review,
test and comment upon this infrastructure as it is proposed and merged.
If something is proposed which will not suit your requirements then it
is important that we hear about it, in detail, at the earliest possible time.

Thanks.