3 ms·

To run Linux containers you will always need Linux somewhere. On macOS this would be in a VM that's usually managed by the tooling. Docker Desktop, Rancher Desk

by mfer 3y ago

To run Linux containers you will always need Linux somewhere. On macOS this would be in a VM that's usually managed by the tooling. Docker Desktop, Rancher Desktop, lima, and others all do this. On Windows you have the Windows Subsystem for Linux v2 that uses a VM. For simplicity, the tooling often tries to make this simple and transparent to use.

pid-1 3y ago
Fun fact: in Linux, Docker Desktop also uses a managed VM. https://docs.docker.com/desktop/faqs/linuxfaqs/#why-does-docker-desktop-for-linux-run-a-vm https://docs.docker.com/desktop/faqs/linuxfaqs/#why-does-doc...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- v3ss0n 3y ago
  Yeah that's the worst thing docker did
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Art9681 3y ago
    If its hardware accelerated the performance difference would likely not matter. And you're not going to deploy a high performance container on a desktop environment since edit:[the desktop] will consume a much greater deal of resources from your host than the VM ever will. For deploying a development environment or self-hosted services it's fine.
    - v3ss0n 3y ago
      It sure does. It crippled my intern gaming laptop just later found out that she is using docker desktop instead of docker.io in Linux.after reinstalling that , there's no visible performance problems running containers
  - mfer 3y ago
    It sorta makes sense for a bunch of reasons: 1. You only have to deal with one Linux distro in the VM. Managing things across many distros can be difficult at that level. 2. There are times you want to blow away your environment. Can't do this if things running on the host. 3. You'll want to controll the resources your workloads uses so they don't make the Linux desktop unresponsive. VMs provide that level of separation. I could go on but you get the point. If you're a power user who wants it on the host you can do that. For the masses of this kind of product, a VM has a lot of advantages.

by mfer 3y ago

pid-1 3y ago

Fun fact: in Linux, Docker Desktop also uses a managed VM. https://docs.docker.com/desktop/faqs/linuxfaqs/#why-does-docker-desktop-for-linux-run-a-vm https://docs.docker.com/desktop/faqs/linuxfaqs/#why-does-doc...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
v3ss0n 3y ago
Yeah that's the worst thing docker did
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Art9681 3y ago
  If its hardware accelerated the performance difference would likely not matter. And you're not going to deploy a high performance container on a desktop environment since edit:[the desktop] will consume a much greater deal of resources from your host than the VM ever will. For deploying a development environment or self-hosted services it's fine.
  - v3ss0n 3y ago
    It sure does. It crippled my intern gaming laptop just later found out that she is using docker desktop instead of docker.io in Linux.after reinstalling that , there's no visible performance problems running containers
- mfer 3y ago
  It sorta makes sense for a bunch of reasons: 1. You only have to deal with one Linux distro in the VM. Managing things across many distros can be difficult at that level. 2. There are times you want to blow away your environment. Can't do this if things running on the host. 3. You'll want to controll the resources your workloads uses so they don't make the Linux desktop unresponsive. VMs provide that level of separation. I could go on but you get the point. If you're a power user who wants it on the host you can do that. For the masses of this kind of product, a VM has a lot of advantages.