Talk:Container Linux

Docker and its underlying Linux Containers (LXC)

Docker uses the same techniques as LXC (cgroups and namespace support), but docker v0.9 is not based on lxc anymore, so "underlying" is wrong. I think the following would probably be more correct: "... using Docker and its operating-system-level virtualization technology based on Linux cgroups and namespace support for running multiple isolated Linux systems (containers) ..."

But, I'm not a native english speaker so I don't want to change it by my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.24.108.17 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! That's a very good point, thank you! This edit improves the explanation of how CoreOS relates to Docker; it might have gone a bit deeper into how Docker works internally and accesses the Linux kernel's virtualization features, but that would've just blurred the whole description so it's better to leave it to the Docker (software) article, which I've also clarified at the same time. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS

Couple of points, that this article could be closer in line with other articles per MOS, and attempts to improve that have been undone:

• WP:SEEALSO says consider using "{{Div col}} if the list is lengthy"
  • It's not too lengthy, but removing them was undone [1]
• Same applies to WP:EXT
  • Undone [2]
• Using the incorrect case for a link (piped or not) is a minor improvement (or major respectively)
  • It shouldn't be undone again like this [3]
• Overuse of primary sources
  • Tag was removed [4], and although there's merit in the reason, it would be good to cut back on the primaries, to steer away from (WP:NOT#MANUAL / WP:NOT#HOWTO / WP:NOTCHANGELOG) like:
    • "Deployment" section
• Having multiple EXT links to subs of the official one isn't normally useful per WP:EXT (WP:ELMINOFFICIAL etc)
  • Fixing that was undone [5]
    • "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them" - that guideline was not followed when restoring the link

I disagree with these undos, but leave for active editors here such as User:Dsimic to take the suggestions on board. Widefox; talk 12:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your suggestions – here are my thoughts:

• For the "See also" lists, it all depends on how long is considered lengthy; also, in general, "See also" lists should be brief, so even having more than a few entries could be considered lengthy. My decisions on using columns are primarily based on the fact that the majority of Wikipedia articles looks really bad when viewed on widescreen monitors with maximized browser windows. Why? Well, large-format newspapers and magazines are a good example – they use columns to improve readability as it simply isn't readable to have long lines of text. Thus, viewing Wikipedia articles on a 24-inch screen in a maximized browser window simply doesn't make sense, and I tend to provide what fits well into a reasonably sized browser window. In this particular case, I find that having two columns in the "See also" section fits really well.
• Got the "External links" section trimmed down and cleaned up, so it now fits very well without employing a multiple-column layout.
• Regarding the case of piped links, you've read the discussion on my talk page, and there isn't a single guideline that could make it more than a personal preference; thus, no approach is either correct or incorrect. As a result, once they're placed, it would simply be the best not to change the case of piped links. Also, with this article we could even pull the article-wide consistency argument that would demand uppercase piping as all other piped links are uppercase.
• I'd say that steering away from using non-primary sources would dumb the article down, and we don't want to have a "CoreOS is a very good (even cool) thing a few guys are currently making in some California garage, hoping to make a lot of money; it also runs on a lot of boxes with flickering lights on them, some of which are even in those guys' basements", do we? :) Pretty much all important aspects of the article are covered by non-primary references, and the article is far, far away from resembling a manual or howto. Also, we can't expect to have non-primary sources covering more technical details, as hardly anyone is going to retype what's already available as part of the official documentation – especially while the project is rapidly changing and evolving.
• Got the redundant "External links" entry deleted. You're right, having that link wasn't that useful as it's part of the directly above linked official website, and the "External links" section is full of links to the official documentation. :)

Hope all this makes sense. Of course, I'm more than open to discussing it further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out, my edits are to bring it more in line with other articles.

These are style issues, which I see no reason why this article should be different from others.

About using the wrong case for links, we have two editors that disagree with them (and more importantly, reverting to restore them). You know how it works here, the burden in on you to gain consensus. You cannot just assume that just because it is your preference, and not explicitly covered by MOS that logically it is an protected personal preference that can be justified by linking to your own talk page POV and reverting given the feedback there! On your talk you suggested a third opinion, and it's been given. It's a trivial issue anyhow, but now repeatedly annoying another editor, rather than dropping it, discussion of it belongs at MOS rather than in this article, and in the meantime you should revert yourself as against consensus. User:Thumperward, your reaction to my third opinion would be welcome. Widefox; talk 21:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't convince me that lowercase piped links are the way to go. Regarding the third opinion, we all know that having one is highly welcome and appreciated, but it also has no special powers.

Uppercase piped links are not wrong, simply because there are absolutely no guidelines about that. Though, I'm totally open to extending the MOS with such a rule, through the standard RfC process: if we end up with MOS having the "lowercase piped links" rule, I'll accept it as I've accepted 99.9% of the MOS. In the meantime, I won't change the case of already existing links, as I've explained it on my talk page, but also won't tolerate others doing that.

Please don't get me wrong, usually I'm not that stubborn, but those piped links are somehow very close to my heart, perhaps because they reflect my personal freedom. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs)

Point by point:

• It is not conducive to productive collaboration to continue to insist on personal editing idiosyncrasies after multiple editors have objected to them; nor should the existence of WP:BRD as an examination of a common pattern be interpreted as a carved-in-stone editing methodology, such that one's first instinct upon any change being made to an article is to revert it. Reverting good-faith edits is aggravating, and so as a matter of course it should be avoided unless there's some demonstrable negative impact to the article while the matter is discussed.
• The established consensus of the project is that articles that rely on primary sources will always be less neutral, less able to establish real-world notability and more inclined to puffery or inclusion of trivia than those based primarily on secondary sources. That isn't really a matter of opinion at this point. Tech articles suffer worse for this due to the lesser quality of their available secondary sources (primarily the enthusiast press and profiting third parties), but that is not a reason to reject the notion of secondary sourcing as the ultimate basis of any article (which it is, more than any other).
• Regarding the columns in the see also section, the problem is linear lists are much more readable because one needs only scan in one direction: we make an exception for very long lists if they are unavoidable, but need not do so for short ones. On my current widescreen monitor this article uses four columns of two, which is absurd and leads to a much greater need for scanning (and thus losing position) than if a single column were used. The inclusion of a small amount of additional whitespace in the simpler layout is not a massive concern.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

On second thought, having the article tagged with {{Primary sources}} complies with general guidelines, so I've restored that tag. However, I'd bet we'll almost never have enough secondary sources available to cover what's currently backed by primary sources, and currently available non-primary sources simply don't provide enough information for creating an article beyond "CoreOS is a good thing that can run on many boxes". :)

Regarding the multiple-column layout, I think there might be some kind of a compromise available, which would both save some vertical space and avoid issues on larger screens; please allow me some time to check whether it would actually be doable. Also, the way different people find reading of different layouts depends on personal perception, for example I find compact layouts much more readable. However, I think we'll agree that vertical space is premium on wide screens, which are widely used.

Anyway, no kind of a two-editor consensus can convince me that lowercase piped links are the way to go, as there are simply no guidelines about that; thus, if uppercase piped links are my "personal editing idiosyncrasies", then the lowercase variant is pretty much your idiosyncrasy. If the consensus on lowercase piped links (or uppercase, they're the same in that regard) was so broad, there would be a guideline for that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at Template talk:Div col § Specifying the maximum number of columns, that's the compromising solution I've mentioned above. With the template's "use the specified columns width, but don't split the content into more than x columns" behavior, we'd be able to both save some vertical space and prevent the creation of too many columns on higher-resolution screens. Hope you find that acceptable. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dsimic back to this page and the same annoying point again! Let me be more blunt.... two other editors (Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) and I agree), and my copy editing wiki gnoming was reverted on more articles [6] [7] "No case changes for already existing piped links, please" . Sorry? I fix those all the time - they're on a par with leaving underscores in links. This isn't about separating the (personal style) wheat from the (newbie) chaff. It's all chaff. Care to rephrase based on policy/guideline? Widefox; talk 00:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're also annoying me at the same time, as I've created those two articles and placed the links. :) As I already wrote above and in other places, if the consensus were so broad there would've been a guideline about the case of piped links; otherwise, once they're placed their case shouldn't be changed. As simple as that – everything else is like twisting my arm into that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, in general something that isn't broken can't be fixed, and we have no guidelines that mark capitalized piped links as broken. So, you should simply stop "fixing" them. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dsimic:

• How do other editors distinguish "incorrect capitalisation" from "preferred style", i.e. if put there in error or on purpose?
  • Not broken: In quotes we have {{sic}} for editors and readers. For language variants {{Use ...}}. There is none for this.
    • Variants: For optional language variants, the variant for the first non-stub version is used to prevent flipping like this. These two are stubs (not that it would be set once non-stub as this has such no such guideline).
  • MOS: Where's the justification or similar example in MOS:PIPE, WP:PIPE? Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Links (the closest which doesn't mention piped links) "Initial capitalization: Wikipedia's MediaWiki software does not require that wikilinks begin with an upper-case character. Only capitalize the first letter where this is naturally called for, or when specifically referring to the linked article by its name: Snakes are often venomous, but lizards only rarely (see Poison)." These links can also be handled by Help:Pipe trick which is case sensitive.
    • Precedent: It's probably been discussed before, did you check?
    • Burden: there's appears to be no weight behind the argument, and no acknowledgement of such.
• Technology=/=style: just because the technology is case-insensitive doesn't give any weight to using, reverting and enforcing the incorrect case. (when all MOS examples are the opposite, this is, de facto, the opposite).
• WP:POINTy: anyone can link to any non-consensus justification on their talk page, it doesn't make it have any weight around here.
• Collaboration / WP:OWN: I've created some Linux stub articles myself, the last message I want to give to any other Linux article editors like yourself is keep off and don't change them.
• Forum: the correct location for discussing this is at a MOS, not here with limited consensus, which is not productive. Widefox; talk 09:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the guidelines you've linked say that referred articles in piped links need or should be written in lowercase. What you've quoted from Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Links is about what's displayed to the readers, not about the actual Wiki code.

Speaking of WP:OWN, I've seen numerous computing-related articles that had become rotten over time just because they had nobody to "watch" over their content; they migh be partly according to the MOS, but their content is either vastly outdated, badly written, with bad grammar in multiple places, or just plain below the bar. As a matter of fact, and unfortunately, there simply aren't enough editors knowledgeable in various computing areas. Thus, having an "owner"‍—‌that is, someone who doesn't just do drive-by editing from time to time‍—‌might actually be a good thing for computing-related articles. Please don't get me wrong, but you should be saying "thank you" to me for what I'm doing here, and you should compromise a bit on some of my minor "quirks" instead of insisting on some of your "gnoming" activities that even aren't backed by our guidelines. Again, please don't get me wrong, "gnoming" activities are very important, and I also do quite a lot of such stuff myself; however, adding substantial chunks of new content is much more important to Wikipedia, and I've added a lot of that as well so far.

However, I still feel like you're trying to twist my arm, and I'm not that much willing to tolerate such approaches. Thus, I'd suggest that we start a discussion on MOS and see what's the opinion of various MOS regulars. If we end up with an official guideline about the case of piped links, I'll accept it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Beside the fact that Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Links speaks about what the readers see in rendered output, not about how to write the Wiki code, let's analyze a bit the quote from it. The quote says that first letters should be capitalized "when specifically referring to the linked article by its name"; if we wanted to take the bean counting route, that could be interpreted as applying to the Wiki code of piped links as well, as they specifically refer to the linked article, don't they? Just wanted to additionally demonstrate that your quoting was rather wrong and unsupportive to your preference of having uncapitalized piped links. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Version 935.0.0

https://coreos.com/releases/ shows the latest stable release as "835.11.0" and the latest alpha as "935.0.0". I cannot find evidence that version 945.0.0 has been released, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.219.20 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, have a look at https://github.com/coreos/manifest/releases/, which provides relevant information about latest release and preview versions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with Gentoo Linux

Hey, NightMonkey! As I've already described it in my edit summary, while reputable blogs may be used as reliable sources, that blog, quite frankly, doesn't look like one. Any chances, please, for finding better references? Or should we try to expand the Chrome OS and Chromium OS articles instead? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In progress. Added CoreOS documentation reference, will seek more. In the meantime, please do not delete the additions and references again. Improve, yes, delete, no. :) NightMonkey (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, went ahead and improved it :) by removing a low-quality reference, unifying the WIki code, and tweaking the wording a bit so the references are followed more closely. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! NightMonkey (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you in the first place. :) I'd say that we're covered now, and I haven't been able to find any additional references on the CoreOS–Gentoo relationship. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

CoreOS Linux becomes Container Linux

CoreOS renamed CoreOS Linux to Container Linux by CoreOS. You can see the updates on the landing page and the announcement on a blog post.

Agreed -- page should be renamed "Container Linux". Daniel Robbins (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge

The article on the company CoreOS should be merged here or deleted. Generally a company with one product does not meet notability threshold, until there are enough independent sources that talk only about the company. W Nowicki (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

etcd 04/2018

etcd should have its own category... as it is an standalone software that can run out of Linux Container. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.252.161 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Container Linux by CoreOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912161231/https://coreos.com/legal/pilot/ to https://coreos.com/legal/pilot/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150813223334/https://www.opencontainers.org/pressrelease/ to https://www.opencontainers.org/pressrelease/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214143636/https://coreos.com/using-coreos/systemd/ to https://coreos.com/using-coreos/systemd/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

CoreOS is not Container Linux

CoreOS is a company with several other products besides Container Linux, including etcd, rkt, and Clair. I think CoreOS should get a separate page and not simply redirect to this one. Qzekrom (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Link to Fedora CoreOS

I added a link to Fedora CoreOS on a recent edit (all other Linuxes mentioned on the first paragraphs are linked).

This was reverted without any explanation, any rationale behind this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyNotHugo (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)