being the main author of crun, I can clarify that statement: I am not a fan of Go _for this particular use case_.

Using C instead of Go avoided a bunch of the workarounds that exists in runc to workaround the Go runtime, e.g. https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/blob/main/libcontaine...

crun is not a setuid program

Podman and CRI-O share the low level libraries (namely containers/image and containers/storage).

crun is Tech Preview in OpenShift 4.12: https://cloud.redhat.com/blog/whats-new-in-red-hat-openshift...

I am the author of Crun and the name was chosen to emphasize it is in C, compete with runc and still read like "container run".

In retrospect, I could have chosen a better one.

The name is quite descriptive and fits the target audience perfectly as far as I’m concerned.

I knew exactly what you were going for from nothing but the name, so I think you did a great job personally.

The name is quite memorable and the points you made are valid; so please don't change it unless you have a very good reason to.

FWIW I really liked the name and think it’s creative yet terse and easy to search.

The name is fine. Pay no attention to the bikeshedding.

crun runs the OCI validations tests on each PR.

The tests are maintained here: https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-tools/tree/master/...

I guess this is the closest to be "certified compliant", but that is not enough for working with existing container engines as everyone just assumes runc is used

The OCI runtime cost is so small that I do not expect any measurable difference in a cluster.

Thanks!