> I mean sure, it's the UI component only, and not on the lxc repo but the Zabbly one, and maybe they treat things widely differently depending.
This one is fair since Incus and Zabbly have had no desire to reimplement a web UI, they've instead opted to leave that to the community resulting in LXConsole for example.
Zabbly, for additional context, is Stephane Graber's company that he set up as a consultant service for Linux and Linux Container (both in terms of the Linux Container organization and the LXC project)
EDIT: I read this part to suggest that former LXD team members that are now on the Incus team potentially have the same mindset, if this is wrong, please correct me.
> And I swear I had a similar experience with regards to some other incus issues where there was a similar response about changes.
So far from my two years of interaction (both as a lurker and commenter) on the forums and purveyor on the issue tracker, I've yet to see anything that resembles treating Canonical LXD as any form of upstream especially since the split.
The only time this held, vaguely to my recollection, true was prior to Incus 0.4 where both were cherry picking from each other but neither were upstream of each other
This has been one personal pet peeve with the documentation surrounding Incus.
As a stack, Incus has been exceptional, it has largely replaced Proxmox and Podman Quadlets for me. For context, I homelab so I cannot generalize my claim to SMB or enterprise.
But the documentation has been very end user oriented, information regarding specifics like seccomp as you mentioned are only discoverable with the search bar and that leads to various disparate locations; and that also isn't taking into account that some of the more nitty gritty information isn't on the Incus portion of linuxcontainers.org, see the LXC Security page for example: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxc/security/