back to article Canonical takes its LXD 'containervisor' back into the house

Canonical's LXD tool, previously maintained in public under the auspices of the Canonical-sponsored Linux Containers project, is being taken in-house. On US Independence Day, Canonical announced that the LXD project it sponsors is, um, no longer independent. Previously, development of the LXD project had been carried out as …

  1. chuckufarley
    Linux

    I hope...

    ...That this is not an end to LXD. For years I have used it for system containers and I have found that there is not an alternative to it that is as easy to use, configure, or maintain. It was the one feature of Ubuntu that kept me using it into 20.04 and one of the major reasons I switched to opensuse. Then again, I feel that LXD is so useful and powerful that it will be forked and that this move by Conical will just create a sense of urgency in the communities that rely on LXD.

    CentOS has left one scar too many on the Bazaar for this sort of thing to go unnoticed.

  2. Crypto Monad Silver badge

    Browser-based GUI

    ... is actually built-in since lxd 5.14. Nothing to install, just turn it on:

    snap set lxd ui.enable=true && snap restart --reload lxd

    I don't think we have to worry too much about it going in-house. Debian Bookworm has imported lxd already, and Canonical always were the main developers, and are claiming it will remain under Apache 2 licence.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I've been using LXC for years - first on our work server and now on my home server as I find it so useful. So it's fairly small scale stuff, but I'm a big fan. I looked at LXD, but couldn't really see what it offered above LXC, other than more complexity.

  4. Crypto Monad Silver badge

    Here's the backstory: the lead developer of LXD has decided to quit Canonical.

    https://stgraber.org/2023/07/10/time-to-move-on/

  5. georgezilla

    Just another reason to say "Fuck Canonical and Ubuntu". One of so many, many reasons to.

  6. Cybersaber

    Late to the party but...

    '...is no longer independent.' is a misconstruction of the functional use of 'independent.'

    If a project doing or not doing something *depends* on my say-so to do something, then by definition it was never independent in the first place. For it to be actually independent, Canonical should have been unable to 'call it home.'

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like