This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I feel that the phrase "burdened with patents that aim to restrict the freedoms of grid computing service providers" is not NPOV. Yes, CPUshare has patents, but Andrea says that "the CPUShare project has simply no choice but to try to play best by the current rules of the economy in the hope to succeed." This suggests to me that it is an issue of preventing larger companies from squashing CPUshare by simply creating a much larger service that can easily beat it.
While the ethics of patenting this may be dubious, we should present both sides of the issue, and not put words in Andrea's mouth about the reason for the patents.
I've removed the sentence in question. In an article about seccomp, it is not particularly relevant anyway, whether CPUShare is covered by patents or not. -- Rune Kock (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
So the most recent part of the seccomp article is now incorrect and outdated. And I refrain to comment on the CPUShare part because I've clear conflict of interest, so I'll wait the community to sort it out eventually.
Oppose:seccomp is notable enough on its own to deserve a separate article, and the fact that seccomp is a technical subject changes pretty much nothing regarding its suitability. We also have other sandbox-like mechanisms (AppArmor, for example) that are described in separate articles as purely technical subjects. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Since currently there is various similar systems in development I think it is important to really differentiate them. Sandboxes can have rather big differences in how they work, what their features are and of course which operating systems they support and which software has implemented them (see the list in the article). I would consider sandboxes a class of software and sandboxing a technique. I agree that if there is sandboxes that barely have users they should be grouped together, but there is a lot one can write about seccomp. For example the history is interesting, that one of the original uses was actually to allow distributed computing with untrusted code. Also it seems to develop, so one might want to add a history, similar to other software projects. For the history parts, etc. I disagree with your first point. I agree with it being only one mechanism, however I think a separate article would probably allow one to go deeper. On the size of the articles I would say that they are simply not written yet. Doing sandboxing the right way (especially on topics like complexity and flexibility) is still a rather new topic. Seccomp is one technology allowing that, but just like I wouldn't put all the software regarding operating system containers (which to some degree and in some areas is a competing technique) into one article I also wouldn't put all the sandboxing technologies into one article. I think there is at least some room for extending both the sandbox and the seccomp article. The focus should maybe lie there, rather than merging the articles. Athaba (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.