[PRE REVIEW]: x11docker - Run GUI applications in Docker containers #1346
Comments
|
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. For a list of things I can do to help you, just type: What happens now? This submission is currently in a You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here. |
|
|
PDF failed to compile for issue #1346 with the following error: /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon.rb:83:in |
|
@mviereck - many thanks for your submission. Please review the submission documentation https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#example-paper-and-bibliography and format your paper metadata exactly as you find it in the example. |
|
@arfon Thank you for looking at this! |
The submission of x11docker targets Especially I want to mention @nuest who suggested the submission in this ticket.
Maybe these people are interested in looking at this, too: |
|
👋 Hey @mviereck... Letting you know, |
|
Hello @mviereck and all, I am happy to review the paper. May I know where I can find the compiled PDF of the submission? |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
|
PDF failed to compile for issue #1346 with the following error: % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
|
Hello @yxliang01 ! Much thanks that you want to look at this. |
|
OK, the editor is @arfon |
|
@whedon add @yxliang01 as reviewer |
|
OK, @yxliang01 is now a reviewer |
|
@whedon assign @yxliang01 as reviewer |
|
OK, the reviewer is @yxliang01 |
|
@1138-4eb Thanks for your suggestions!
fixed.
fixed, changed to
I think this is still true. The script you've linked mainly checks for kernel configuration. My system misses e.g.
x11docker can also run with e.g.
I am not sure about this. Still important, keep it simple. Sentences that are correct and complete in every detail often get too complicated. Some points I am still not sure about:
Further suggestions for changes of |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
|
I'm sorry @gflofst, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do. |
The point is that some GUI apps can be executed on some systems where docker cannot be installed. In this context, docker does not reduce the requirements, but rather increases them. So, this is not an issue with x11docker itself, but with that fact that running the docker daemon is not trivial. I think it can be solved just by replacing 'reduced' with 'minimal', e.g.: '(...) dependency packaging, and minimal requirements of system environment (besides the container runtime), isolation (...)'.
In this case I'm proposing to remove a limiting addition to the sentence, not to add explicit cases: 'x11docker allows to execute Desktop GUI applications in an isolated environment by running an X display server
My main point here is that x11docker is not specially useful in the cloud-based infraestructures where docker is so widespread, but it is a great tool for other not-so-conventional uses of docker, i.e. running desktop applications that use GPU acceleration, audio, webcam, etc. This is what makes it so valuable in multiple areas of academia, where this paper is expected to be cited. As you say, it is correct as is. Just trying to focus the attention of the target audience. I'd like to ensure that readers which have nothing to do with cloud-based infraestructures are attracted from the beginning. ATM, it is not until the third paragraph starting from the end that the user reads something about the 'host'. Still, it is not clear if 'host' is 'server', 'workstation', or whatever. Overall, we do know what docker can be used for, but lots of researchers have never used it and all the references they have are about kubernetes and large scale deployments (money talks). One of the strenghs of x11docker is that it is a greatly engineered orthogonal point of view.
I think it will be good to wait until we get one or a few reviews/suggestions from people that is not involved at all. Certainly, non-CS perspectives would be very valuable.
IMHO, it is not required at all. You can decide to do it or not. Both options are correct. If you don't feel like doing so (which I would agree with), the argument is easy: "they haven't been the first with this solution, but the first publishing a paper about this". To reference the original source of information, stackoverflow is ok. If you add it because it falls in the group of 'similar projects' with no regard to novelty, many other should be added too:
Citing all of these is something I'd expect from a 'regular' publication. But that would be an introduction to a longer article where the implementation details of x11docker are dicussed and compared to other approaches. So, for each feature, you would explain what did exists, how did you put it together, whether you did anything new and how does it compare to others (performance or functionality). However, I think this is out of the scope of this submission. It could be the target for a future update, tho. That's why I asked about it above.
I think that the summary is too short to require a subtitle. We should be able to improve it just by reordering the content. For example, wdyt about removing the first sentence and starting with the fifth paragraph? So:
|
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
|
@whedon add @sgyzetrov as reviewer |
|
OK, @sgyzetrov is now a reviewer |
|
OK, @1138-4eb is now a reviewer |
|
Thanks for all of the interest & activity around this submission already. Let's move this forward to the main review. |
|
@whedon start review |
|
OK, I've started the review over in #1349. Feel free to close this issue now! |
|
@yxliang01, @sgyzetrov, @1138-4eb - many thanks for agreeing to review this submission. Please head over to #1349 where the actual review will take place. @gflofst - thanks for your interest in reviewing this submission. I've decided to go ahead with the first three volunteers here. |
Submitting author: @mviereck (Martin Viereck)
Repository: https://github.com/mviereck/x11docker
Version: v5.5.1
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @yxliang01, @sgyzetrov, @1138-4eb
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @mviereck. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@mviereck if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: