Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#41

Post by peteretep »

sneak wrote: post #19

Reminder: unlike the docker command line tool, and the dockerd server container management tool, the Docker Desktop products are a) not free software, b) not even source available, and c) send a lot of sensitive data about your system back to Docker Inc without consent. I didn’t realize this for a while myself, as the docker CLI tools are all free software. The “Desktop” variants are not, and embed spyware.

The value added by the desktop variant also seems very minimal. Anyone seen an open-source easy-to-use docker host for OS X?

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#42

Post by ajconway »

toabi wrote: post #25
thethimble wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think MacOS and iOS are similar enough for this to be an obvious jump. I think the iOS kernel is also prohibitively locked down to do anything like custom virtualization.

https://twitter.com/ktemkin/status/1382913602940674050

It should be noted that this doesn't use any hardware-assisted virtualization acceleration.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#43

Post by pjmlp »

coldtea wrote: post #35
pjmlp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point being that Apple adoption of ARM is irrelevant for servers, Apple products aren't even available in most countries below tier 2 in an amount that developers would care. They will either be using Windows in some form (even if pirated), now with Linux VMs as standard feature, or some Linux variant.

> My point being that Apple adoption of ARM is irrelevant for servers, Apple products aren't even available in most countries below tier 2 in an amount that developers would care. (a) It's not those countries that drive trends (if they were we wouldn't have heavy frameworks and a 10MB SPA bloat as the norm in web development), (b) ARM was already trending for use in servers (heck, even supercomputers), (c) and Apple'…

Lucky you to work for such wealthy organisations.

I happen to care for fellow developers, and outside our Fortune 500 customers orgs, I haven't seen anyone being so lucky, and even then, Apple hardware tends to stay at MBA levels, unless they are doing iOS development.

I have seen devs teams where iMacs are timeshared across teams.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#44

Post by doctor_eval »

pjmlp wrote: post #23
est31 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Linus Torvalds said too: ARM won't have a chance in the datacenter until it gets onto desktop computers of developers first. https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=183440&curpost... That moment is now here. Sure, it's only a subset of the market, but Mac devices are a significant percentage of developer computers (28%), way higher than in the general population (17%). https://insights.stackoverflow…

I did not have a 88000, SPARC, PA-RISC, RS/6000 desktop to develop on UNIX. Likewise, with the return of timesharing, anyone can log into their assigned server slot and work just like I was doing 30 years ago.

Did you work on 88K with DG/UX? I loved that OS. All my 88K work was done on a dumb Wyse 60 terminal logged into one, and I’d busily UUCP my files between the various machines depending on which ones I was working on.

But things are a bit different now, it’s much more convenient to work on a laptop, so most people do that. Maybe the pendulum will swing the other way and we’ll start timesharing again, with laptops as terminals instead of standalone machines, but even if that’s possible in theory, there are few providers of ARM in the cloud at the moment. It’s a chicken and egg problem and I think Linus is right, it’s going to take pressure from devs, most of whom IMO don’t care enough to make a difference.

The tipping point will be when deploying to x86 becomes annoying (for some measure of annoying). Right now, even though I’d personally like to deploy to ARM (or at least give it a red hot go), my cloud provider (Vultr) doesn’t support it yet, and I don’t personally plan to go ARM on my desktop until next year. But I’m a CPU enthusiast. Most people wouldn’t bother to go the the extra effort.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#45

Post by n42 »

I am disappointed that this still requires Rosetta to install, negating the point of targeting Apple Silicon for my usecase.

I recently had to wipe my machine to remove Rosetta (there's no "uninstall"), and saw quite a significant boost in performance across the board.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#46

Post by n42 »

Laremere wrote: post #12

I wonder if the Apple Silicon decision is going to have a large impact on what CPUs are used in the datacenter? I (and I suspect many others) would just default to x86_64, because that's what I develop on and compile to. I suspect many developers on Apple computers will start to look at the differences and choose whatever meets their requirements while minimizing costs. Should this trend continue, this could even hav…

I think it will. I am personally targeting arm64/Graviton2 on my side projects because the cost/performance improvement is noticeable. I think this will only snowball for adoption in work environments.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#47

Post by Webox »

stu2b50 wrote: post #4

I've used the preview release, and my experience with ARM containers has been good - even seems a little more stable than the Intel one. But I only did a x86 Linux container as a test, and it wasn't a great experience. Seemed visibly slower and crashed once. So whether or not this suits your needs, I feel, depends on to what degree you need the "contract" that your local environment is the same as prod, because you'r…

I think its an anti pattern if you do it locally different than what you do on production.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#48

Post by aidos »

Laremere wrote: post #12

I wonder if the Apple Silicon decision is going to have a large impact on what CPUs are used in the datacenter? I (and I suspect many others) would just default to x86_64, because that's what I develop on and compile to. I suspect many developers on Apple computers will start to look at the differences and choose whatever meets their requirements while minimizing costs. Should this trend continue, this could even hav…

Totally. We've spent the last 2 weeks getting all our dependencies recompiled for arm64 and now we're there I'm pretty keen to see what our bang for buck looks like on gravton2 machines (we've been using 64 core c6g.metal machines for compiling).

There's just one final remaining vendor dependency that we're running via qemu on x86 that's holding me back at this stage.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#49

Post by kmonsen »

pjmlp wrote: post #43
coldtea wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point being that Apple adoption of ARM is irrelevant for servers, Apple products aren't even available in most countries below tier 2 in an amount that developers would care. (a) It's not those countries that drive trends (if they were we wouldn't have heavy frameworks and a 10MB SPA bloat as the norm in web development), (b) ARM was already trending for use in servers (heck, even supercomputers), (c) and Apple'…

Lucky you to work for such wealthy organisations. I happen to care for fellow developers, and outside our Fortune 500 customers orgs, I haven't seen anyone being so lucky, and even then, Apple hardware tends to stay at MBA levels, unless they are doing iOS development. I have seen devs teams where iMacs are timeshared across teams.

Mac mini is $700, pretty sure most companies can use this as a dev computer.

Re: Docker Desktop for Mac (Apple Silicon)

#50

Post by stefandesu »

n42 wrote: post #45

I am disappointed that this still requires Rosetta to install, negating the point of targeting Apple Silicon for my usecase. I recently had to wipe my machine to remove Rosetta (there's no "uninstall"), and saw quite a significant boost in performance across the board.

You mean simply having Rosetta installed on your machine noticeably slows down everything else, even if you're not using an app under Rosetta? This sounds like a bug.
Post reply on HN