[billybofh]

I'm always surprised that OpenVZ[1] doesn't come up more in discussions about containers. I used to use it extensively in for small lightweight VPS's (usually just an apache or mysql instance) and always found it to be pretty impressive. I've used Docker to make a debian-packaged app available on a bunch of CentOS machines and it saved me a huge headache (the dependency tree for the app was huge) so I'm a fan - but still a little puzzled at OpenVZ's seeming invisibility.

[1] http://openvz.org/Main_Page

[wmf]

OpenVZ was basically the prototype for LXC. Distros seem to have better support for LXC since it's "official".

[billybofh]

Yeah, I realise it's place in LXC history. It still seems slightly odd that it's been kind of overlooked. It offered quite a lot (and still does) that I don't see replicated in any of the other container packages. At least not without quite a lot of manual faff.

Possibly it was just a little ahead of it's time and was also overshadowed by the rise of HW virtualisation in the later 2000's. Having to install a custom kernel (certainly when I used it) was also a bit of a hassle mind you. Anyway - maybe someone will re-invent the toolchain using Swift or Node and it'll become cool again ;-)

[justincormack]

It also has a security focus, while docker has started with convenience for deployment rather than looking like an isolated machine.

[contingencies]

Don't forget Linux vServers as well.

[FooBarWidget]

It's probably because of the way OpenVZ is marketed (or should I say, not marketed). OpenVZ's technology could probably do the same as what Docker does but they're not marketing it in the same way. The concept matters just as much as the actual technology.

[billybofh]

I guess. Having a commercial version with a different name to push can't have helped the branding either.