On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Michael Dexter <edi...@callfortesting.org>wrote:
> On 1/23/14 8:01 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > Except for the consoles petitecloud does it much more smoothly... > > May I kindly suggest that you not use this list for PR or to slam the > work of others? > > Michael > 1. My comment was a complement not a criticism (the consoles likely make it a better script functionality wise then petitecloud's [see below]). I was only offering an alternative approach which is to generate it as needed thus avoiding the need for conditionals (since this is the method petitecloud uses it is highly unlikely our scripts are at all portable except as starter scripts for someone to hand modify). 2. I was responding to his request for if anyone had anything better and stating that from a control flow (and control flow only) POV ours are slightly (and only slightly) better. But the need to have console far out ways that (our scripts do not attempt to give console access except during OS install). I suspect that our goals are also quiet different in that Craig is likely looking for something that is meant to be used locally such as a NAS and the owner will thus always have console access. PetiteCloud makes the assumption that the most typical use of virtualization is cloud computing and in this case local access is often impossible. This means any console access has to allow for remote operation. Like I said in an other thread I think the only long term solution to this problem is to add VNC to bhyve. -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"