From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 29 15:17:24 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FC36F09; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:17:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31F7917; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:17:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id t0TFHK4j039243; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:17:21 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:17:20 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: Mark Felder Subject: Re: preferred jail management tool In-Reply-To: <1422286469.3182385.219013237.42043664@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20150130015830.D36378@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <20150123210026.GA45086@mail.michaelwlucas.com> <54C30BEC.3090102@gmail.com> <20150125013753.X33605@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <1422286469.3182385.219013237.42043664@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:17:24 -0000 On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:34:29 -0600, Mark Felder wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015, at 09:16, Ian Smith wrote: > > Excuse top-post, but the gmail header on this message was (surprisingly) > > insufficiently anonymised to disguise its origin: > > > > That could very well be Joe Barbish. It could also be someone in the > same city who uses FreeBSD and likes qjails. Either way, I'm not sure > how calling him out for advertising his own work adds any meaningful > value to this discussion. And even if he is pushing his product it's not > like he's misleading you about the current functional differences > between qjail and ezjail... Fair enough, you're a stickler for evidence; I'm one for probity, and tend to decry attempts to advance one's cause by belittlement of others, so yes, I wasn't referring to purely technical aspects. > I understand there is bad blood from the forking of ezjail and lack of > attribution (which I didn't care to involve myself in), but let's move > on. It will either stand on its own merits or it will go the way of the > dinosaurs... No point in making our community look so hostile. So I got a brickbat on-list and a surprise bouquet off-list, both from people I respect; also fair enough. But I won't cop that I was purporting to speak for the community. Like everybody else - short of official announcements, security advisories and the like - I speak only for myself, no such disclaimer required. > Thanks for your detailed review, Ernie. cheers, Ian