Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:03:49 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com> Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org, Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, sib@tormail.org Subject: Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique Message-ID: <20130322220317.A32142@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <CAHieY7RwXrd%2B1OANbd0vCjVxfNFjALMObFHww4u_raCaphV0rA@mail.gmail.com> References: <1UHfYF-000LVV-4Y@internal.tormail.org> <5148980A.1070408@erdgeist.org> <20130321170556.Q32142@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <CAHieY7RwXrd%2B1OANbd0vCjVxfNFjALMObFHww4u_raCaphV0rA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:21:29 -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:30 +0100, Dirk Engling wrote: [.. also chopping mercilessly ..] > > > # Copyright 2010, Qjail project. All rights reserved. > > > > > > offensive. I am usually quite open with the license of my software, > > > beerware is as permissive as it gets. I just can not take some script > > > kiddie right out copying my code verbatim and selling it as his, not > > > even acknowledging me as the original author. > > > > > > Anyone here with suggestions how to properly react to this kind of "fork"? > > > > Yes. Publicity. Making sure the FreeBSD community gets to finds out. > > > > [...] > > > To that end I'm cross-posting this to -questions, where Mr Barbish has > > also posted about his proposed "rewrite" of Chapter 16 of the Handbook, > > which is nothing but a huge and poorly written manual for 'the qjail > > way', with its peculiar assumptions and unique "jailcell" terminology. > > "Fourth Generation", no less! > > > > +1 > > Thank you Ian for cross-posting here. > > The first thing I did when I got the new chapter for review was search > for the work EzJail and I was curious as to why EzJail is not > mentioned anywhere in this new proposal and why it isn't mentioned in > the current handbook either under in section "16.5.2 High-Level > Administrative Tools in the FreeBSD Ports Collection". If there is > __any__ tool that should be mentioned in the jails chapter it is > EzJail because it's really easy to use and does a damn good job. Actually, ezjail has been explicitly mentioned in '16.6 Application of Jails' http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/jails-application.html since revision 30226 by danger, Mon May 28 20:02:46 2007 UTC, which section was just 6 weeks ago updated with a (preceding) similar port reference to qjail: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/doc?view=revision&revision=40900 [..] > NOW some things start to make sense to me, when I posted a problem > with EzJail here last year that very few people, if any, knew what I > was talking about. An how could they? if it's not mentioned anywhere > in the handbook or that jail man page(s). man pages aren't an appropriate place to recommend particular ports; there are others, and there will be more. The above are mentioned in the handbook page in the context of simpler alternatives to following the more detailed procedures presented to actually teach one how jail technology may be implemented, which - in my view - is the Good Stuff. There have been about 20 messages in freebsd-jail@ referring to ezjail this year so far before this thread, as in previous years; try browsing the archives from http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-jail/ OTOH, I've seen no prior posts in jail@ about qjail before this thread. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130322220317.A32142>