Talk:Linux Containers

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

burn down and rebuild

I'd like to take a crack at re-writting this article from the ground up as I feel that would be less work than trying to retrofit into this version. I'm thinking it might be ok for me to rename this page to 'linux_containers-legacy' or the like and others can take a look at whether some info on this page needs to be included in the new one I am proposing. Any objections or thoughts? Graysky (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I have taken a good stab at this now. Please review and keep this article neat and tidy. Graysky (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you've tried to address the status templates that were at the top of the article, but since your edits didn't follow ArchWiki:Contributing#The_3_fundamental_rules, I'll add the links to the previous revisions, to try and make it slightly easier to review this change for anyone who found the time to compare them:
  • previous "Linux Containers" article: [1]
  • previous "Lxc-systemd" article, which has been merged here: [2]
Kynikos (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize the edits were considered too complex. I actually found it really tough to try to update, simplify, and combine the original page. Thank you for the linking. Graysky (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, the previous revisions did need a thorough clean-up, and the current article does look more organized, so I appreciate your effort of course, it's just that without proper edit summaries it's very hard to double-check the change and understand where the apparently removed content has gone. Let's just leave this open and see if somebody wants to review it. — Kynikos (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
No objections, peer review is welcomed. Graysky (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't installed a new container in a while so I looked up this wiki article today. I noticed that some information is not present anymore, such as the possible issues when using a systemd container. My conclusion was that these issues no longer exist and the information was therefore deleted from the wiki. After reading this discussion, I'm not sure about that. If it is still relevant, I think it should be part of the main article, or at least referenced. If it isn't, I guess it should be deleted completely. Troja (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Example using only netctl

@Lahwaacz - While I agree that we don't want to duplicate content in other articles, I feel that providing a working configuration within the article is welcomed for completeness just as we do in the beginners guide. Therefore, a few common set ups are needed in my opinion. See, Graysky (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but these two approaches are opposite: we can either avoid duplication or follow the BG style. What is wrong with instructions such as "Create a bridge named ... as described in ..." which is still sufficiently (IMO) complete? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the article should keep the two examples following the BG style. Just my $0.02. Graysky (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
+1 for merging, the wired network section is practically a copy of Bridge with netctl, I don't see anything specific to Linux Containers here. — Kynikos (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
-1 for merging the network stuff. The examples provided in the article are appropriate. For me as a consumer of information, the Archwiki merges the past couple years have led to more confusing, fragmented articles/how-to's because now, you end up having to flip back and forth between multiple browser tabs, searching entire articles for the one or two bits that relate to what you are actually trying to accomplish, rather than having relevant info provided in context, right where you need/want it. Sure, have the larger, more exhaustive networking article that I can reference for the nitty, gritty details. And I get that that may also be desirable from wiki maintainers perspective. For a user perspective, however, it's much less efficient for me have to search through it all, try to figure out what context is applicable or not, etc. Tough balancing act. I've just been noticing that as of late things that used to be fairly easy and straight forward to follow, no longer are, and require much more jumping around to sort out the bits you're actually looking for. Peace. Kgunders (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
-1 for merging for the reasons nicely articulated by Kgunders. Graysky (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)