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

macOS Container Machines

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 457 posts

Re: macOS Container Machines

#421

Post by qalmakka »

cogman10 wrote: post #378
qalmakka wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FreeBSD has Linuxlator because there is a lot of binary only software that was never and never will be ported to BSD, so it's necessary for them in order to avoid bleeding users away. Conversely, macOS has basically all software ported natively to it, so when you _need_ a Linux environment 95% of the time it isn't because you need $XYZ that only run Linux, but because you need a proper Linux environment with systemd,…

> Implementing that stuff on top of XNU would probably be extremely expensive and it would arguably defeat the point of having their own kernel in the first place. I'm not sure how it'd defeat the point of having their own kernel. As for cost, possibly, but it would really be a huge boon to macOS for software devs. It's hard for me to believe that Rosetta isn't similarly costly, but it's been done because running x86…

> I'm not sure how it'd defeat the point of having their own kernel.

Because then you'd need to both maintain your kernel AND your own implementation of the Linux ABI, an ABI you don't have control over and that basically forces you to reimplement half on Linux in the first place.

People already get what they want by having a tiny Linux machine running at native speed. In 2026, virtualisation still isn't free, but it's pretty darn close.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#422

Post by hnlmorg »

nyrikki wrote: post #393
hnlmorg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

386BSD and its derivatives (eg FreeBSD) weren’t really attacked by SCO like other UNIXes were. In fact SCO filed more lawsuits against Linux than they did (for example) FreeBSD. FreeBSD was also used heavily in the late 90s in ISPs and similar domains.

I think you are a possibly a decade off on the timing here. USL v. BSDi is what impacted the BSD side, and it was during that lawsuit before Novell bought USL etc.... that the problems were that allowed Linux to make gains while the net/2 distros were in a waiting game IMHO. The timing absolutely helped Linux and GNU being packaged as a complete system by the various distros etc..., and common OSS distribution points…

Sorry, I don’t think my point was very clear. I wasn’t saying that SCO sued Linux in the 90s nor that the UNIX wars had zero impact.

Just that FreeBSD was still used a lot in the 90s and managed (at least from what I experienced) to dodge most of the concerns that companies had deploying other UNIXes.

I mean, it’s not like UNIX use dropped to zero overnight.

So you did see a lot of Internet companies using FreeBSD as their platform of choice. For a while, it really did look like FreeBSD was becoming the dominant server platform in that domain. Not everyone too Linux serious at that time. It wasn’t until at least 99 when Linux became a viable competitor to FreeBSD.

But once Linux did gain favour its popularity sky rocketed. Which is exactly why SCO took various Linux shops to court.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#423

Post by hnlmorg »

manithree wrote: post #391
hnlmorg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

386BSD and its derivatives (eg FreeBSD) weren’t really attacked by SCO like other UNIXes were. In fact SCO filed more lawsuits against Linux than they did (for example) FreeBSD. FreeBSD was also used heavily in the late 90s in ISPs and similar domains.

Nobody said SCO sued BSD or BSD users. USL sued BSD and UC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc.... .) long before the SCO lawsuits.

Even in that case, it was one suit and it was settled before FreeBSD was ever released.

Which simply wasn’t enough drama to persuade businesses on smaller budgets away from using FreeBSD.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#424

Post by hnlmorg »

pjmlp wrote: post #390
hnlmorg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

386BSD and its derivatives (eg FreeBSD) weren’t really attacked by SCO like other UNIXes were. In fact SCO filed more lawsuits against Linux than they did (for example) FreeBSD. FreeBSD was also used heavily in the late 90s in ISPs and similar domains.

Those only came to be after AT&T lawsuit was cleared, and by then Linux already had enough wind behind it. Also SCO lawsuit was more due to IBM's money than Linux. Both a different situation than Windows NT being available a decade earlier.

You’re sidestepping my point that FreeBSD was in widespread use in the 90s.

My point about SCO wasn’t clear though. I was just saying FreeBSD wasn’t as embroiled in the UNIX wars as the others, ie referencing SCO vs Linux to demonstrate how even Linux suffered more time in the courts than FreeBSD did.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#425

Post by qalmakka »

pjmlp wrote: post #208
qalmakka wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does any older folk here remembers when NT was the Cool New Thing (TM) and it had by design support to multiple subsystems plopped over the NT API, and Win32 was just one of them alongside POSIX (Interix) and OS/2? There was even a _very short_ time span when Interix was actually usable (it was extremely short though)

Yes, the only reason I cared for Linux in first place was that the POSIX support wasn't that good. I am convinced that if POSIX subsystem was UNIX serious, GNU/Linux would never taken off on PC, and the whole would be divided between SGI, HP-UX, Solaris, Aix and Windows NT.

The BSDs would be much bigger today if it wasn't for AT&T going after them hard in the early '90s, exactly when both them and Linux were starting to take up speed. I think that things could have gone way different if the BSDs were bigger and more popular, in quite unpredictable ways (it's not like they haven't been popular anyway though - see Darwin, or the Playstation OS for instance)

Re: macOS Container Machines

#426

Post by Melatonic »

pjmlp wrote: post #403
leshenka wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it wasteful? I know it's a "tiny" vm but still is a vm

See Kata containers. https://katacontainers.io/ For ultimate security, containers alone aren't enough. Windows is also having a similar feature on top of WSL, announced at BUILD. https://github.com/microsoft/mxc

Isnt this a micro VM and not a container? Confused

Re: macOS Container Machines

#428

Post by garganzol »

kiproping wrote: post #237
blahgeek wrote: post #10

OrbStack works really well for me. I wonder how it’s compared to this performance wise

Thank you for mentioning this, I have been suffering under the yoke of docker.

Orbstack is essentially a happy-path-only contraption that quickly breaks once you happen to take a less visited corner of the street. For example, if you happen to have multiple users who needs to work with it... good luck trying to clean up your system afterwards. So, it's a yoke as well. Maybe a better one for some people, but still a yoke.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#429

Post by qalmakka »

nyrikki wrote: post #396
hnlmorg wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were already better free options than Linux when Linux first started gaining traction. The reason Linux grew in the 90s was because it was part of the hacker culture. Not because better options didn’t exist. Kids liked the fact that Linux was a free-for-all, anything-goes, platform. It wasn’t stuffy like Unix and it wasn’t proprietary like Windows. Then those kids grew up and became decision makers themselves.…

Actually Linux was very SysV like back in the day, so it was more like the stuffy OS's that people liked. GCC was the real catalyst, With even SUN which had used bundled dev tools as a early selling point was unbundling them and charging more, many x86 UNIXes like SCO didn't even come with a tcp/ip stack without an extra fee...and you couldn't take C code from HP to another system and actually have it compile. As Sol…

> IMHO the real Linux advantage is that it was using the gnu user land, and thus gcc worked well with it and companies started to sell commercial support early.

IMHO what really differentiated Linux were

a. the bazaar development approach, which lowered barriers to contribution, felt more transparent and "safer" with regards to what was going on in kernel land

b. the GPL, which while annoying to certain companies due to its viral nature, it at least guaranteed that no competitor could just develop a major innovation, grab the kernel and all of your contributions and run with them, undercutting you in the process

and also a noteworthy mention was the fact the BSDs were basically sabotaged by AT&T via their nefarious set of lawsuits, which nipped in the bud any semblance of advantage they had

Re: macOS Container Machines

#430

Post by pjmlp »

Melatonic wrote: post #426
pjmlp wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Kata containers. https://katacontainers.io/ For ultimate security, containers alone aren't enough. Windows is also having a similar feature on top of WSL, announced at BUILD. https://github.com/microsoft/mxc

Isnt this a micro VM and not a container? Confused

A micro VM than encapsulates a single container inside, two levels of protection.
Post reply on HN