The jeVM blog post does a good job explaining how running containers in VMs works, but why not just call them VMs? http://pftf.blogspot.no/2015/11/virtualized-containers-jevm.html …
-
-
Replying to @kelseyhightower
Calling them virtualized containers focuses to much on marketing. The benefits of running lightweight VMs is a strong enough argument.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kelseyhightower
This unnecessary rebranding of VMs also applies to microkernels in many ways. At the end of the day we are still talking about VMs.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kelseyhightower
The real value of virtualized containers and unikernels has a lot to do with application packaging and reusing existing VM tech to deploy.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kelseyhightower
While I don't agree with the marketing, I like the way "app container" style packaging is being leveraged in the world of VMs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kelseyhightower
The remaining question for me: are there any implementations of shared kernel containerization that can ever match the security of a VM?
14 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @kelseyhightower
@kelseyhightower When I get around to doing a kernel, there will be. Linux will never get this right, though.1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
@kelseyhightower Linux is way too stuck on global state/global namespaces and just faking local with "clever" remappings.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.