To clarify a few comments here: this is not only OCI containers: container machines add support for persistence and filesystem mounting, making container machines a great lightweight Linux environment for developers using macOS. More details here: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2026/389
macOS Container Machines
61–70 of 457 posts
Re: macOS Container Machines
#62Re: macOS Container Machines
#63Is this new? I thought we had this already In my testing (iirc) filesystem performance was not good enough to be usable with node/rust dev where lots of small files get stat-ed update: what's new is the `container machine` subcommand. I went to test it out, but container failed to run at all for me: https://github.com/apple/container/issues/1681
Re: macOS Container Machines
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the Darwin/BSD Subsystem for Linux.
Not quite, it’s still a VM. And while it supports virtio balloon for growing RAM, it doesn’t yet support releasing that RAM back to the host. And there isn’t a convenient way to shrink the sparse disk images as they grow yet, either.
Re: macOS Container Machines
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite, it’s still a VM. And while it supports virtio balloon for growing RAM, it doesn’t yet support releasing that RAM back to the host. And there isn’t a convenient way to shrink the sparse disk images as they grow yet, either.
Isn't the Windows subsystem for Linux (the reference there) also a VM?
Re: macOS Container Machines
#66OrbStack works really well for me. I wonder how it’s compared to this performance wise
(OrbStack dev here.) Instead of Virtualization.framework, we have a custom Rust virtualization stack with custom devices and protocols for things like filesystem sharing. It's a highly optimized vertically integrated stack specifically for running our Linux machines and containers. Our biggest perf/resource gain is dynamic memory, which reduces memory usage a lot by releasing unused memory back to macOS. Nothing else…
Wow, missed this when reviewing OrbStack. I assumed that you just used Containerization and therefore would have the same limitation.
Re: macOS Container Machines
#67Wouldn’t it be nice if services like Codespaces or Coder or Gitlab would allow you to target running on their hosted/integrated platform, or let you launch that same container completely locally? Sometimes I wanna take my “remote” dev environment off-line but still benefit from the integrated UX.
Re: macOS Container Machines
#68Wouldn’t it be nice if services like Codespaces or Coder or Gitlab would allow you to target running on their hosted/integrated platform, or let you launch that same container completely locally? Sometimes I wanna take my “remote” dev environment off-line but still benefit from the integrated UX.
Re: macOS Container Machines
#69OrbStack works really well for me. I wonder how it’s compared to this performance wise
AFAICT it's pretty similar.
Re: macOS Container Machines
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect macOS is fundamentally more secure than desktop Linux operating systems and it isn't particularly close. No amount of Linux hardening will get a system even close to an M-chip Mac. Software insecurities aside, desktop Linux OS systems have almost none of the hardware-backed security benefits that Macs do.
At some point, lack of security becomes a feature. A fully secure, locked-down, T2 attested macOS is able to be controlled not just by Apple, but by increasingly evil governments, with no recourse available to users.