Talk:Operating system-level virtualization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Someone please fix

I've noticed someone made an erroneous edit: the last two rows of the chart make absolutely no sense. Someone please fix and say it's been fixed below this comment. ~Ninjagecko

Deleted. --DavidHopwood 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

What does UML mean here. Can someone disambiguated it? --Mjchonoles 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

UML (User-Mode Linux) is more a para-virtualization: a guest OS modified to be run not on top of the bare metal, but under the hypervisor (and the hypervisor is Linux in this case, which is a bit unusual). That is why I removed it: UML is in no case OS-level virtualization. --K001 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Jail (computer security)?

I suggest to merge the Jail (computer security) article into this one. They both are about the same subject. And speaking of Jails, there is a FreeBSD Jail article which tells about Jails. But the Jail (computer security) article is actually telling about OS-level virtualization.

--K001 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with merge of Jail (computer security) into Operating system-level virtualization, since both articles try to summarize the entire technology class. But FreeBSD Jail should remain separate article, since it is about a specific implementation. -- Bovineone 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I finally managed to merge the articles. I tried to be very accurate (and spent about an hour doing the merge), but if possible I ask you to look through the pre-merged version of Jail (computer security) and check nothing is lost. --K001 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note that Paravirtualization is not the same as OS-level virtualization

If you want to add Xen or User-mode Linux to this article, please don't do that. Both Xen and UML belongs to paravirtualization, which is quite a different technique. In other words, they do not belong here. --K001 11:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Xen is paravirtualisation, but UML is not! --Doc aberdeen 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please no Xen, no UML here

See the previous comment why. --K001 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The title of this article is confusing. For example the L4 kernel does virtualisation, at the Operating System level. That technique has every right to be named "Operating System level virtualisation", but it is totally different from what this article describes. --Doc aberdeen 05:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] " an advanced extension of the standard chroot mechanism" ?

This seems to me to be a serious oversimplification; it's like saying a car is an advanced extension of a skateboard. In Solaris Containers, the mechanism for filesystem virtualization is radically different than chroot, and there's a heck of a lot more going on than filesystem virtualization.--NapoliRoma 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is indeed a serious oversimplification, but still a chroot() was a precursor to the modern containers technology, like a horse "powered" vehicle was a precursor to the modern car. --K001 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to "Containers"?

I propose to rename the page to "Containers" or "Containers technology" or "Containerization" or something similar. The thing is, "Operating system-level virtualization" is quite long, complex and not definitive. Containers, on the other hand, is intuitively understandable. --K001 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] add KVM?

can someone please add linux kvm to the table? thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mator (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)