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)