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

Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 281 posts

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#121

Post by exacube »

user5994461 wrote: post #84
shiado wrote: post #16

I'm actually tempted to get one of the new Macbook Airs. There's something intriguing and fun about navigating the brokenness of a new ecosystem. Does anybody know how Steam handles the new macs?

>>> Does anybody know how Steam handles the new macs? Games are mostly C++, based on my experience with C++ codebases I'd say there's about zero chance that a game could be (easily) recompiled and made to work on ARM. And games won't be ported anyway because it's too much work for too little sales, even if a developer really wanted to make it work they'd need a $2000 new mac to be able to compile/test in the first pl…

Maybe you're talking about indie developers. I don't think studios worry about spending $2000/machine for porting. And a lot of studios also outsource porting

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#122

Post by damnencryption »

ForHackernews wrote: post #120
mhh__ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having people working on fast ARM machines will be good, although I do worry that apple will be apple and you'll never be able to run (say) Linux on said ARM chips. I used to be fairly laissez-faire about it but now I really think it should be legally required for at least some level of freedom for the end users to be supported (technologically rather than as in customer service) by big tech companies selling hardwar…

Wait, you can't install a non MacOS on these things? Are they basically an iPad in a notebook form factor?

What's a computer? iPad.

People aren't laughing now, are they?

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#123

Post by pvorb »

jcelerier wrote: post #115
black3r wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Docker w/ arm linux kernel + x86 userland images as mentioned in the issue comments: Docker x86 version already supports running ARM images via qemu out of the box on Windows and Mac, so x86 images via qemu on ARM host should not be a problem...

> Docker x86 version already supports running ARM images via qemu out of the box on Windows and Mac it "works", but on my overpowered i7, running a raspberry pi docker image that way with qemu-user-static is... only marginally faster than running the code on an actual rpi 3, which is pretty much potato-levels of power.

Yep, so if you're a developer and buy a Macbook with the M1, all the potential performance gains would be lost when depending on common Docker images. That's quite sad.

(It would at least be a huge problem for me. I mostly develop server software that runs on Kubernetes on AMD64 machines.)

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#124

Post by cercatrova »

ForHackernews wrote: post #120
mhh__ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having people working on fast ARM machines will be good, although I do worry that apple will be apple and you'll never be able to run (say) Linux on said ARM chips. I used to be fairly laissez-faire about it but now I really think it should be legally required for at least some level of freedom for the end users to be supported (technologically rather than as in customer service) by big tech companies selling hardwar…

Wait, you can't install a non MacOS on these things? Are they basically an iPad in a notebook form factor?

Presumably they are locked down. When asked about alternate OS, Craig Federighi said that it will be virtualization rather than booting other OS on the metal, ie Linux (and possibly Windows) VMs rather than Bootcamp. That's one of the big things stopping me from switching from the Intel version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg9F1Qjv3iU&t=3772

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#125

Post by egsmi »

oblio wrote: post #104
freetime2 wrote: post #44

I will not be buying one of these first generation M1 devices because of issues like this. But in the long term I actually think it’s going to be a really good thing for the industry if we can get more developers using non-x86 devices and deploying code to non-x86 servers.

> But in the long term I actually think it’s going to be a really good thing for the industry if we can get more developers using non-x86 devices and deploying code to non-x86 servers. Why? If it's about the dominance of x86, I think in about 15-20 years there will be no other architectures in widespread use except for ARM and maybe RISC-V.

It took ARM 35 years to be an overnight success and x86 has a very large install base. It's not going anywhere. Remember this thread from not too long ago?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22837753

x86 has lock in like that in spades.

What I think is much more interesting is what the software industry will do with all these random coprocessors we find in chips these days. They seem much less stable than an instruction set but amazing speed gains can be had there, so it's enticing. If software libraries can bring the dream of the HAL to reality, that would be pretty cool.

But from threads like these, it's safe to conclude we're not there just yet.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25057985

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#126

Post by carlsborg »

"At its 2020 Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple announced a non-commercial prototype computer called "Developer Transition Kit" (DTK).[1] It is intended to assist software developers during the transition of the Macintosh platform to the ARM architecture. Described informally as "an iPad in a Mac mini’s body,"[2] the DTK carries a model number of A2330 and identifies itself as "Apple Development Platform."[3][4] It consists of an A12Z processor, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, and a variety of common I/O ports (USB-C, USB-A, HDMI 2.0, and Gigabit Ethernet) in a Mac mini case"

"..Even that DTK hardware, which is running on an existing iPad chip that we don’t intend to put in a Mac in the future – it’s just there for the transition – the Mac runs awfully nice on that system. It’s not a basis on which to judge future Macs ... but it gives you a sense of what our silicon team can do when they’re not even trying – and they’re going to be trying." - Apple SVP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_Transition_Kit_(2020...

"The Apple A12Z Bionic is a 64-bit ARM-based system on a chip (SoC) designed by Apple Inc.The chip was unveiled on March 18, 2020, as part of a press release for the iPad Pro (2020), the first device to use it.[1] Apple officials touted the chip as faster than most Windows laptops of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A12Z

HTH

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#127

Post by josephcsible »

robertoandred wrote: post #101
josephcsible wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Apple would like us to believe that Rosetta is a panacea that makes everything work.

They've detailed explicitly what won't work with Rosetta.

https://www.apple.com/mac/m1/ doesn't mention anything about what doesn't work with it. It just says "With the introduction of Rosetta 2, M1 and macOS Big Sur seamlessly run apps that haven’t yet transitioned to Universal versions." The details about what won't work are in the developer documentation, which most people who buy Macs don't read.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#128

Post by alwillis »

ForHackernews wrote: post #120
mhh__ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having people working on fast ARM machines will be good, although I do worry that apple will be apple and you'll never be able to run (say) Linux on said ARM chips. I used to be fairly laissez-faire about it but now I really think it should be legally required for at least some level of freedom for the end users to be supported (technologically rather than as in customer service) by big tech companies selling hardwar…

Wait, you can't install a non MacOS on these things? Are they basically an iPad in a notebook form factor?

You can't install an operating system that's not signed by Apple. Also, the system partition is read-only (just like Catalina was).

However, as they showed at WWDC [1], you can run Linux and other operating system using Apple's hypervisor. And it will run faster on an M1 Mac than it does natively on comparable Intel hardware.

[1]: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc20/10686

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#129

Post by my123 »

cercatrova wrote: post #124
ForHackernews wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you can't install a non MacOS on these things? Are they basically an iPad in a notebook form factor?

Presumably they are locked down. When asked about alternate OS, Craig Federighi said that it will be virtualization rather than booting other OS on the metal, ie Linux (and possibly Windows) VMs rather than Bootcamp. That's one of the big things stopping me from switching from the Intel version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg9F1Qjv3iU&t=3772

Secure Boot can be disabled on Arm macs. Guess that Craig Federighi says this because Apple won't take care of drivers for other OSes.

See this WWDC session: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686

and this manpage: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/RwcT8stYMY/

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#130

Post by xsmasher »

user5994461 wrote: post #84
shiado wrote: post #16

I'm actually tempted to get one of the new Macbook Airs. There's something intriguing and fun about navigating the brokenness of a new ecosystem. Does anybody know how Steam handles the new macs?

>>> Does anybody know how Steam handles the new macs? Games are mostly C++, based on my experience with C++ codebases I'd say there's about zero chance that a game could be (easily) recompiled and made to work on ARM. And games won't be ported anyway because it's too much work for too little sales, even if a developer really wanted to make it work they'd need a $2000 new mac to be able to compile/test in the first pl…

Most games that survived the 32 bit -> 64 bit change and run in Catalina should run under Rosetta2 with no changes.

Performance? Who knows.

Post reply on HN