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

221–230 of 281 posts

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#221

Post by pentae »

panpanna wrote: post #207
skoczko wrote: post #190

I've been holding off on upgrading my MBP13 for a few years now because Apple was painfully slow to refresh it. I was ready to order the model that came out in May (with 32GB RAM) but then the rumour about ARM hit the internets so I kept waiting. Now (I guess always?), it's clear that Apple Silicon is not going to be a comfortable dev environment, at lest not for some and not for a while. JDK macos/aarch64 port is st…

All this trouble so you can stay with apple? Unless you are an ios dev, why??

MacOS, is usually the answer.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#222

Post by izacus »

alwillis wrote: post #133
egsmi wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 instru…

But x86 and Intel are losing badly in the highest growth part of the market: mobile/smart phones. Now $699 M1-based Mac mini is way faster than any Intel box in that price range and many that cost much more. The benchmarks that are starting to come out are just nuts , favoring the M1. Of course not all of the pieces are in place; that takes a while. But those developers that are on top of their game released universa…

> But x86 and Intel are losing badly in the highest growth part of the market: mobile/smart phones.

x86 and Intel are making all their money running your k8s on AWS, GCP and other server platforms so you can consume on your locked down ARM device. That's where the big money and margins are.

Apple never really could get a foothold in that market.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#224

Post by anentropic »

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?

I don't know about Steam specifically, but in the Apple keynote they said that existing games can run under Rosetta 2 and that some of them even have higher frame rates due to M1 speed despite emulation

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#225

Post by bestnameever »

OOPMan wrote: post #223
pentae wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacOS, is usually the answer.

That begs an even bigger why, given it's such an awful OS in many ways.

people have different opinions about things. What you think is awful, another may enjoy.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#226

Post by dotdi »

Just my 2 cents regarding this: I've already stopped using Docker directly on my MBP15 (2017, 2.8GHz i7).

It reserves a huge chunk of disk and RAM. Running anything non-trivial (e.g. k3d and a few pods) led to a very noticeable slowdown. My fan was noisy all day.

Instead I purchased (for a very, very modest amount of money) a decommissioned rack server with a dual Xeons (2*8=16C/32T) and 64GB of DDR3 RAM. It's on my local gigabit network. I docker-machine into it. The hardware is obviously older but build times are in the same ballpark.

I'm holding out for the 16" ARM MacBook Pro but I'll probably pull the trigger when it's released.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#227

Post by Fumtumi »

angrygoat wrote: post #152
LeSaucy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was a huge reason why I decided to go with a 16" MBP with an i9 vs the M1 today. I assume this will get worked out eventually , but as massive as Apple's gravity is in their ecosystem to pull apps along, they will have a much harder time against the massive library of x86 docker images.

I guess the flip side is that, hopefully, the Docker ecosystem will start getting a lot better at multi-arch, at least for x86-64 and ARM. I just ordered an M1 MBP and I'll be quite happy to start thwacking bugs in images and upstreaming the fixes.

We operate a k8s cluster with our own software and lots of opensource stuff.

If i can't run our own images on a future mac, i will no longer buy one.

I can't force my team to maintain two versions if there is no better business reason.

I'm quite curious how this will play out.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#228

Post by ubermonkey »

OOPMan wrote: post #223
pentae wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacOS, is usually the answer.

That begs an even bigger why, given it's such an awful OS in many ways.

LOL. Because people value different things?

I stay on MacOS because it works very, very, very well for what I want to do.

There are a large number of affirmative reasons I prefer Macs. Hardware build quality has traditionally been stellar, on par with the golden age of Thinkpads (which is one reason the keyboard thing was so jarring). The OS is immensely, profoundly stable. The built-in tools for things like mail, contacts, and calendars work very very well. The overall polish of the experience is unmatched.

AND I have access to a bash prompt, and a whole host of FOSS offerings for things I might want. (As I've moved away from actually writing code, this has mostly boiled down to emacs and a few other bits, but still; it's comforting.)

I also use an iPhone, an iPad, and have an Apple Watch. The seamless integration is really, really great. I'd be hard pressed to give that up.

Add to this the fact that there are material reasons I want to AVOID the other two players:

- Windows is a chaotic disaster in terms of consistency, stability, overall design, and general behavior over time. The degree of weird enmeshment of binaries required to install software more or less guarantees system bloat that just doesn't happen on Macs.

- Linux can be many things to many people, and if Apple hadn't moved to a unixy base at the turn of the century I'm sure I'd have ended up there. But as it is, I'm just not willing to tinker around to achieve a workable environment for me, or deal with the inevitable interoperability challenges that would come from living without the COTS tools I rely on, like Office.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#229

Post by ubermonkey »

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.

I mean, I wouldn't buy first-gen of anything from anybody. When Apple went Intel, I bought year2 or 3 hardware.

What they're showing now is pretty damn impressive. I look forward to the M2 or whatever variants that would be a more direct replacement for the 2019 rMBP I have now (6 cores, 32GB RAM).

But I'm happy to wait. If you don't have virtualization needs, and your use case is pretty straightforward, these are gonna be amazing machines. They're just not the power user machines -- I mean, except for those who insist on bleeding-edge living.

Re: Docker fails to launch on Apple Silicon

#230

Post by markonen »

pvorb wrote: post #175
throwaway894345 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just run the ARM images instead of the x64? Granted not everyone makes ARM images, but in a year or so I fully expect that all serious Docker images will have ARM support (not because of Mac, but rather because of ARM’s progress in the server space). And in the meanwhile, building the image yourself isn’t that hard.

Why would your employer pay you to build and test ARM images when the server they're running on is AMD64? Okay, let's be realistic: they'll probably never find out. But still this is wasted effort when you could just as well use a regular x86 machine for development. Cross compilation will lead to many small problems that add up over time...

More likely than not, those servers are at AWS. And if that's the case, once all the components have ARM images the server instances can be switched over to the M6g instance type for significant cost savings.
Post reply on HN