Matthias Petermann @mpeterma@mastodon.bsd.cafe
Public

I’ve been following the discussions about the name of my NetBSD project ("Jails for NetBSD") across a few platforms over the past days and really appreciate the thoughtful feedback.

The short version: the current prototype is probably closer to a cell or a cage than a strict jail, so the name might indeed not be perfect. The project originally started as an experiment inspired by FreeBSD jails, but while exploring NetBSD internals it evolved into something slightly different: controlled process isolation built around the secmodel framework, a different approach for the tool chain and configuration, and without resource limits and network virtualization.

Because of that, I’m open to renaming the project at this stage.

I’ve attached a small poll with a few candidate names — please vote if you like.
And if the right name isn’t listed yet, feel free to drop suggestions in the comments 🙂

Project site: netbsd-jails.petermann-digital

Jails for NetBSD - Kernel-enforced Isolation with User-friendly Operations

Jails for NetBSD is an experimental NetBSD-native isolation model with kernel-enforced boundaries, supervised service execution, and snapshot telemetry for practical host-side operations.

netbsd-jails.petermann-digital.de · Jails for NetBSD - Kernel-enforced Isolation with User-friendly Operations

Matthias Petermann @mpeterma@mastodon.bsd.cafe
Public

A funny thing happened today: after a meeting I ended up on the phone with a former colleague and we drifted into the ongoing “is it really jails?” naming discussion around my NetBSD experiment.

He pointed me to the FreeBSD Handbook and suggested I look again at how jails are actually described there. That sent me down a small rabbit hole. The more I read, the less clear-cut the distinction felt.

At the lowest level, FreeBSD jails are essentially a kernel mechanism that attaches an identity to processes and restricts visibility and interaction. Many things people associate with “modern jails” today - VNET networking, ZFS-based setups, orchestration frameworks - often live a layer above that core mechanism in tools like BastilleBSD and similar projects.

Interestingly, FreeBSD’s own docs sometimes describe jails as the subsystem that enables containers, and the industry term “container” shows up quite regularly there as well. FreeBSD can even run OCI containers via the Linux compatibility layer. Which made me wonder: have “jails” gradually become something like a brand name for the FreeBSD flavor of containers in people’s minds?

I’m honestly still undecided. The more I read, the more it feels like the answer depends a lot on the perspective and background one brings to these terms.

Curious what the poll will say — please vote if you haven’t yet. And if the right name isn’t listed, feel free to drop suggestions in the comments 🙂

0
0
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://mastodon.bsd.cafe/ap/users/116097543692739616/statuses/116181688524482958 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)