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

441–450 of 457 posts

Re: macOS Container Machines

#441

Post by ActorNightly »

cromka wrote: post #181

So essentially both macOS and Windows now heavily support developing using Linux on them. They can't more openly admit that they are no match for Linux in that area. There's some clever advertising in it for Linux, if Linux was advertising.

Mac OS is adding support because they realize that they are gonna miss a good portion of consumer base to windows laptops running on Nvidia Spark since people can get the perfect machine for gaming and dev.

The big thing with Windows laptops is historically, they were slightly more sluggish than Macs because the os/hardware wasn't optimized. On desktops with enough performance, Windows has been king ever since WSL2, considering you can do everything with that system (WSL2 can even run I3WM if you care enough since they have an X server).

Now with Spark and ARM, you can pretty much get a perfect laptop that supports gaming as a first party, can run any windows only software (like CAD for example), and also has WSL2 which is very natively integrated with windows to where it supports CUDA with native like performance.

A

Re: macOS Container Machines

#442

Post by hnlmorg »

pjmlp wrote: post #440
hnlmorg wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not at all, except for Hotmail and Yahoo, I never saw it being used personally. In fact, had I not bought a set of Walnut Creek CD-ROMs, I would never had used it in first place, and never again since those days, excluding derivatives like macOS and Orbis OS. Which is why I asserted with good POSIX support, the world today probably would be Windows NT linage on the PCs, plus the commercial UNIXes everywhere else.

You work for mainly Windows shops though don’t you?

My experience was very different in the 90s.

Solaris, FreeBSD and Next were very widely used. The only times I saw NT was in edu, government, and a random publishing house (which ran pirated copies of NT 4 on the servers and Mac OS 8 everywhere else).

That publisher is an interesting chapter in my career on its own actually…

Re: macOS Container Machines

#443

Post by pojzon »

kxxx wrote: post #36
blahgeek wrote: post #10

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

I really like OrbStack and am also not sure why I'd use Container Machines over it, at the moment...

OrbStack still uses a single big VM, Container Mashines each spawn its own MicroVM. Isolation level on Container Machines is better from that point of view.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#444

Post by pojzon »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #262
kenanfyi wrote: post #255

I don‘t understand why these tools always advertise about mounting the $HOME inside the container. Isn‘t it better to have a complete isolation? Isn‘t that the point of using such a thing?

Containers only got so popular as a tool for developers to make developing/deploying easier. If you want to use them as a security layer that is a completely different goal and has many highly dangerous pitfalls [1]. Just last week there was a post where people were shocked how an AI agent used docker to bypass sudo on a system. I'd imagine this could happen to most people who installed docker. So if you want to use…

Im currently working on an article about this very topic. And its amazing how hard and multi-dimensional agent sandboxing. LLMs architecture is by design insecure. Working with something like this and making it secure to run in production is extremely interesting topic.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#445

Post by noname120 »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #51
deathanatos wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you can avoid the Docker Desktop tax by not running Docker Desktop. colima is a perfectly usable implementation of Docker for macOS, without the bloat of Docker Desktop. That said, colima still has the expensive VM that upthread is mentioning.

OrbStack is great also

I agree, it’s so much better than Docker Desktop, Podman, and Colima. And not just by a small margin, it feels several orders of magnitude faster and more lightweight thanks to its WSL2-like architecture.

Re: macOS Container Machines

#447

Post by exabrial »

bityard wrote: post #386
exabrial wrote: post #376

Handy for sure! In production though, I've moved completely to systemd isolation of apps, rather than Docker-like containers; essentially blackboxes and present a supply chain threat. There's also a DRY principle here. Verification of a host presents a much smaller surface area.

> moved completely to systemd isolation On MacOS?

Negative:

> In Production

Re: macOS Container Machines

#448

Post by ForOldHack »

weikju wrote: post #116
ForOldHack wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rosetta 2. Rosetta was for Intel to emulate 68k, now if you could get Rosetta 2 to run under Rosetta, then you could run 68k, on an ARM, and if you could get the apple ][ emulator...

Rosetta 1 was for emulating PPC not 68k

[dead]
Post reply on HN