"Stateless Linux" project

[Josh England]

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 15:46, Carwyn Edwards wrote:
> Vendor lockin to configuration engines/methods is 
> horrible.

I certainly agree.  I would like to point out though that oneSIS
operates at the filesystem level (files/directories, not VFS) and is
completely oblivious to anything that is actually running on the
machine.  I configuration engine such as LCFG could peacefully coexist
and from the sounds of it even complement the functionality provided by
oneSIS.  Instead of modifying the configs of remote files, it would
simply be modifying the different variations of a file in the master
image (ie: /etc/fstab.myclass).  That way you could have the
functionality provided by LCFG alongside the flexibility of using
oneSIS.  "Stateless" to me indirectly implies bit-for-bit identicality
of the root filesystem.  The ability is there to deploy a diskful node
and diverge from the master image, but doing so, in my experience, only
tends to complicate rather than simplify.

-JE