4 ms·

Anyone know if this can be easily used in place of Docker Desktop for Mac?

MindTooth 5y ago
Rancher Desktop[0] is one new kid on the block. Any reason for why you want to change? https://rancherdesktop.io/ https://rancherdesktop.io/
- kbd 5y ago
  Personally I'd prefer to use open-source tools if possible. For Podman vs Rancher, what are pros and cons? If you only use Docker from the command line is there any reason to use Rancher?
  - MindTooth 5y ago
    If only podman, not really. Optiona are also lima and colima for a more native feel. Seemd version 4.0 is a nice release.
- saxonww 5y ago
  I spent about an hour with Rancher Desktop when I was really pissed off about the Docker Desktop licensing change. There were a few things that out of the box were a problem for me (note: really a problem with nerdctl/containerd): 1. nerdctl did not support registry mirrors for image pulls. This is an obvious blocker for some uses cases. 2. with Docker Desktop you can bind container ports to any interface on the host system, including e.g. ip aliases on localhost. It didn't seem to be possible with nerdctl using whatever VM backend Rancher is using. 2a. I'm not sure how this works today, but with Docker Desktop a `docker pull` can interact with a registry available on the host's localhost address (i.e. through an SSH tunnel established on the host). This worked with Rancher, but I believe I had to edit /etc/hosts inside the Rancher-controlled VM to point at a different IP address, whereas with Docker Desktop it just worked. I also seemed to recall needing to manually start things with Rancher, i.e. just having the app open was not enough for docker/kubectl/nerdctl to be ready to go. But I don't remember at this point. These are all (I hope) uncommon and weird use cases, but they are the sort of thing that will keep some people using Docker Desktop instead of an alternative. They are, for better or worse, the value add of Docker Desktop.
e40 5y ago
Curious of this, too. Previous versions has issues with volume mapping to local filesystems.
pacbard 5y ago
I want to say it's almost there with 4.0. It seems that they re-implementend most features. For me, this is still the roadblock: > More features, including support for volume mounts from the host, are planned for Podman v4.1, so stay tuned for more updates. I do not run many self-contained containers and I usually end up mounting a local folder in the container, so I'll have to wait a little bit longer to fully transition to Podman. Also, it doesn't have a native interface like docker desktop and it works mostly through the terminal. Last time I checked, there are some external tools that add a Docker Desktop app like on top of podman.
- taw28 5y ago
  Volume mounts are different than mounting a directory into the container. That has been well supported for a while. You can look up what a podman volume is to see the difference.
pm90 5y ago
I’ve used it for the past 6months and haven’t noticed any issue. I don’t miss docker desktop at all.
slig 5y ago
For anyone using on macOS, is it better than Docker for projects with thousands of files being watched for changes?

Rancher Desktop[0] is one new kid on the block. Any reason for why you want to change? https://rancherdesktop.io/ https://rancherdesktop.io/

kbd 5y ago
Personally I'd prefer to use open-source tools if possible. For Podman vs Rancher, what are pros and cons? If you only use Docker from the command line is there any reason to use Rancher?
- MindTooth 5y ago
  If only podman, not really. Optiona are also lima and colima for a more native feel. Seemd version 4.0 is a nice release.
saxonww 5y ago
I spent about an hour with Rancher Desktop when I was really pissed off about the Docker Desktop licensing change. There were a few things that out of the box were a problem for me (note: really a problem with nerdctl/containerd): 1. nerdctl did not support registry mirrors for image pulls. This is an obvious blocker for some uses cases. 2. with Docker Desktop you can bind container ports to any interface on the host system, including e.g. ip aliases on localhost. It didn't seem to be possible with nerdctl using whatever VM backend Rancher is using. 2a. I'm not sure how this works today, but with Docker Desktop a `docker pull` can interact with a registry available on the host's localhost address (i.e. through an SSH tunnel established on the host). This worked with Rancher, but I believe I had to edit /etc/hosts inside the Rancher-controlled VM to point at a different IP address, whereas with Docker Desktop it just worked. I also seemed to recall needing to manually start things with Rancher, i.e. just having the app open was not enough for docker/kubectl/nerdctl to be ready to go. But I don't remember at this point. These are all (I hope) uncommon and weird use cases, but they are the sort of thing that will keep some people using Docker Desktop instead of an alternative. They are, for better or worse, the value add of Docker Desktop.

e40 5y ago

Curious of this, too. Previous versions has issues with volume mapping to local filesystems.

pacbard 5y ago

I want to say it's almost there with 4.0. It seems that they re-implementend most features. For me, this is still the roadblock: > More features, including support for volume mounts from the host, are planned for Podman v4.1, so stay tuned for more updates. I do not run many self-contained containers and I usually end up mounting a local folder in the container, so I'll have to wait a little bit longer to fully transition to Podman. Also, it doesn't have a native interface like docker desktop and it works mostly through the terminal. Last time I checked, there are some external tools that add a Docker Desktop app like on top of podman.

taw28 5y ago
Volume mounts are different than mounting a directory into the container. That has been well supported for a while. You can look up what a podman volume is to see the difference.

pm90 5y ago

I’ve used it for the past 6months and haven’t noticed any issue. I don’t miss docker desktop at all.

slig 5y ago

For anyone using on macOS, is it better than Docker for projects with thousands of files being watched for changes?