lxd VS kubevirt

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the post also links the "add Canonical CLA check #12665" [0], and my understanding is that "retain copyright" here is like a typical forum agreement where you going forward must agree to a perpetual worldwide unlimited license to Canonical that they can use as they please per [1]:

>In effect, you’re giving us a licence, but you still own the copyright — so you retain the right to modify your code and use it in other projects.

You explicitly do retain ownership, so you can then take that same code and contribute it elsewhere under any license you wish. The same author could contribute the same patch to both the LXD and the Incus fork. But some might object to being required to allow Canonical to specially license as they want.

So your characterization seems unfair, and then gets kind of nasty at the end:

>The author is pissed off because he can't build custom versions without redistributing the modifications

Incus is a full fork, and Canonical has apparently been taking changes back from it as well as is often the case with such forks where both sides get value from each other. It's perfectly understandable for some folks to be bummed if that's no longer the case, and there is nothing evil about the Apache2 license. There's plenty of history that in OSS going back to the beginning, no need for insinuations or attacks.

----

0: https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12665/commits/eb5c773d...

1: https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors

You could consider LXD which lets you easily run both containers and VMs: https://ubuntu.com/lxd

I hope this doesn't affect LXC negatively.

LXC and LXD share plenty of contributors.

https://github.com/lxc/lxc/graphs/contributors

https://github.com/canonical/lxd/graphs/contributors

I use an "unprivileged LXC container" setup on several Debian bullseye hosts. It works fantastic, and each LXC container feels like a real server.

Compare that to Docker's "one-container-one-process" philosophy, reinventing the wheel by awkwardly composing multiple containers.

[1] https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/

The expected changes are: - https://github.com/lxc/lxd will now become https://github.com/canonical/lxd - https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd will disappear and be replaced with a mention directing users to https://ubuntu.com/lxd - The LXD YouTube channel will be handed over to the Canonical team - The LXD section on the LinuxContainers community forum will slowly be sunset in favor of the Ubuntu Discourse forum run by Canonical - The LXD CI infrastructure will be moved under Canonical’s care - Image building for Linux Containers will no longer be relying on systems provided by Canonical, limiting image building to x86_64 and aarch64.

First, download virtctl for ARM: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/releases/tag/v1.1.0-alpha.0

The full list of changes can be found in the Release notes. There are performance and scalability benchmarks published for the v1.0 release.

If you're happy with k8s and longhorn, why add Proxmox as another layer underneath? Consider kubevirt ?

Have you looked at http://kubevirt.io/ ?

If the answer to "how do you run VMs" is "Kubernetes does it" then its about https://kubevirt.io/

We are even using Docker Hub to store and distribute VM images...

https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/blob/main/containerimag...

Docker Desktop runs dockerd in a Linux VM with Apple's hypervisor framework. You can also run containers in a Linux VM with Parallels or VMware Fusion hypervisors. But you can't run VMs inside those VMs as it stands today. This works fine on Intel Macs which means you can't experiment and use KVM - one of the killer features of Linux and things like https://kubevirt.io/

Proxmox VE can run VMs and LXC containers (see my comment below on LXC). Kubernetes can run OCI containers, but there's also KubeVirt for running VMs.

Another option would be something like KubeVirt but that is a different use case where you are actually running a VM in a container for hard-to-containerize workloads.