lxd VS podman

Running NixOS on a virtual machine (VM) is a safe and reproducible way to test such configurations. As for VMs, I have used VirtualBox, Vagrant and lxd in the past. However, I have found QEMU to be the simplest and most flexible solution for my needs.

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.

Podman: A lightweight container runtime that eliminates the need for a desktop app. It’s free, open-source, and compatible with many Docker workflows.

Container Engines: Docker, Podman

A Quadlet is a way to create a service (with systemd) from a container. It uses Podman, a container engine. As it is OCI complient, the Docker images are compatibles with Podman.

And there's no REPL for the editor--so I can't actually find out details, let alone fix anything.

I had thought emacs DX was bad--but I've revised my opinion now: compared to vscode DX, emacs DX is great. You live with VSCode if you want to.

And note, vscode was made after emacs was made. There's no excuse for this.

I think this now was about all the time that I want to waste on this thing, again.

How is this a problem in 2025? shakes head

>VS Code managed to by-pass the qualitiy and amount of extensions/plugins in a fraction of time Emacs took decades.

Yeah? Seems to me these vscode extensions are written in crayon. Bad quality like that would never make it into emacs mainline. And it's not even strictly about that! I wonder who would write a developer tool that the developer can't easily debug its own extensions in. That flies about as well as a lead balloon.

For comparison, there's emacs bufferenv that does dev containerization like this and it works just fine. Configuration: 1 line--the names of the containerfiles one wants it to pick up. Also, if I wanted to debug what it did (which is rare) I could just evaluate any expression whatsoever in emacs. ("Alt-ESC : «expression»" anywhere)

PS. manually running "podman-compose up" in an example project as a regular user works just fine--starts up the project and everything needed. So what are they overcomplicating here? Pipes too hard?

PPS. I've read some blog article to make socket activation work for rootless podman[1] but it's not really talking about vscode. Instead, it talks how one would set up "linger" so that the container stays there when I'm logged out. So that's not for dev containers (why would I possibly want that there? I'm not ensuring Heisenbugs myself :P).

[1] https://github.com/containers/podman/blob/main/docs/tutorial...

Podman kube has support for k8s Jobs now: https://github.com/containers/podman/pull/23722

k8s docs > concepts > workloads > controllers > job:

There is a third option: enable the Docker socket and use Docker Compose as usual.

https://github.com/containers/podman/blob/main/docs/tutorial...

To install Podman on Windows, start by downloading the Windows installer from the official GitHub release page. Make sure to grab version 4.1 or later for all the features in this guide.

In the intensity of working as a DevOps engineer with the container, I have found Podman to be a game-changer in teams that take the security aspect seriously-that means avoiding root privileges. It's daemonless compared with Docker, which is a big architectural change. Daemonless approach just magically changes how teams do container security in production environments.

Podman implements a daemonless container architecture that eliminates the need for a central runtime service. This approach fundamentally differs from Docker's client-server model.

Docker is a company that maintains the Docker software and also offers a cloud service to run Docker containers in the cloud. They run DockerHub, which is a platform to store share and run Docker images. The actual standard for Docker containers is called OCI (Open Container Initiative). Because Docker is based on OCI there are many other tools that can interact with Docker containers, like Podman or Lima. If you want to go really deep, I really recommend reading the OCI specification! It's long but super interesting.