On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:43:46AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > I still think the complaint was about terminology, not implementation. I don't think that is what http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/12/426 conveyed! > They just didn't want you calling them containers. Yes that too. > > Anyway, summarizing on "why nsproxy", the main point (I think) is about > > using existing abstraction in the kernel. s/abstraction/"implementation detail" then :) > But nsproxy is not an abstraction, it's an implementation > detail/optimization. -- Regards, vatsa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
