5 ms·

Keep it up! What trickery does OrbStack[0] use to be fast? We went back to Podman Desktop because of the license[1], but the interactions on macOS are almost

Keep it up! What trickery does OrbStack[0] use to be fast? We went back to Podman Desktop because of the license[1], but the interactions on macOS are almost as slow as Docker Desktop. As for Podman itself, happy users here, and our workflows have been working for a while now. We are only missing faster local development. ---- [0]: https://orbstack.dev/ https://orbstack.dev/ [1]: https://docs.orbstack.dev/faq#free https://docs.orbstack.dev/faq#free

moondev 3y ago
I'm fairly certain orbstack runs "machines" as lxc containers on the host vm, and then container runtime inside. Not sure if that would make container operations any faster but it would speed up "machine" lifecycle. You can do this yourself via multipass, it's an interesting solution specifically on Apple Silicon because nested virtualization is not available and lxc does not require a hypervisor .
kdrag0n 3y ago
OrbStack dev here — sorry, can't reveal too much, but some of it is documented here: https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture By "we" I assume you're referring to your company/employer, so I'm curious if there's any way the license could be more palatable short of being 100% free?
- zxexz 3y ago
  Nothing against this model, but your website states “OrbStack is completely free to use during beta, but it will become a paid product afterwards.”[0] Also, the rest of the page implies OrbStack will be charging for any commercial use. If this is the case, I don’t see how this is “free” in the sense that most people on this site interpret it. Have you thought about the FOSS model with support, maybe a Jetbrains style thing - adding enterprise/paid features on top of the FOSS stack? [0] https://docs.orbstack.dev/faq https://docs.orbstack.dev/faq
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Free can mean free as in freedom or free as in beer, most people even on this site do not use "free" to mean exclusively the former, or "libre" as it's better distinguished. It is well understood exactly what the sentence you quoted means, especially as they disambiguated it through saying it will be a paid product afterwards, so obviously meaning free as in the free as in beer sense.
    - zxexz 3y ago
      Oh, I full-heartedly understand and agree! However, I think referring to something as "free" when it's explicitly "free right now and probably not later" is a bit misleading. I doubt GP was trying to pull any wool over any eyes. In the enterprise context, especially, the differentiation is pretty important. Also, the page I linked does imply that it will become not free in the lunch sense of the term, for commercial users (already not free in the libre sense of the term, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that).
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        They explicitly say free during beta and paid afterwards so if anyone misunderstands that, that's on them. It's quite reasonable to have such phrasing and many other products also have similar business models.
        zxexz 3y ago
        I was referring to GP’s comment, not the website. Otherwise, pretty much agreed.
- alberth 3y ago
  I think GP just means that OrbStack will no longer be free post beta, and that was their objection. I have no problem paying for quality products, which OrbStack appears to be … but developers hear the words “license” or “free” and then get hopeful they can get a free lunch. As such, a suggestion, just remove this line from your FAQ: “Educational and non-profit open-source licenses subject to approval. Commercial open-source developers must purchase a license.” Talking about open source in the same context of a paid subscription might be confusing people.
  - rhaps0dy 3y ago
    > Talking about open source in the same context of a paid subscription might be confusing people. It's making some useful work though. It's only going to be free for non-profits who develop open-source software. (I work at a non-profit which makes some closed-source software, and I'm an Orbstack user, so I expect to pay when the time comes)
    - benterix 3y ago
      > I work at a non-profit which makes some closed-source software Out of curiosity: is it for internal use?
      - rhaps0dy 3y ago
        At the moment yes, but we're planning to share it with some similar organizations and independent researchers.
  - kdrag0n 3y ago
    Yeah, I can understand that, but since it's for work I figured I'd ask whether it's a flat-out objection to anything paid, or if it's more to do with something specific about the license. Thanks for pointing that line out — just reworded it to be more clear.
- rhaps0dy 3y ago
  This diagram explains it very well, thanks! So there's only 1 VM, running a modified Linux kernel (https://github.com/orbstack/linux-macvirt/commits/mac-pub https://github.com/orbstack/linux-macvirt/commits/mac-pub) with a barebones userland. Then inside there's a bunch of souped-up chroots (probably LXC/LXD), running the various linux distribution VMs as well as one that just runs `dockerd`. Here it specifies that all the VMs share 1 kernel: https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture#linux-machines https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture#linux-machines On top of this, it's fast because it uses Rosetta (which is very fast) and kdrag0n spent a lot of time optimizing various parts of the kernel and the resulting environment.
kiratp 3y ago
> We are only missing faster local development. Developer time is probably your most expensive resource. Saving $8/mo at the cost of dev time seems… suboptimal.
- dijit 3y ago
  Sometimes its more the issue that not owning your tools causes: A) forced changes which can eat your “savings” B) rent seeking (or: non-optional price increases like I’ve experienced with gitlab) C) The company pivots and leaves your tool behind to languish

moondev 3y ago

I'm fairly certain orbstack runs "machines" as lxc containers on the host vm, and then container runtime inside. Not sure if that would make container operations any faster but it would speed up "machine" lifecycle. You can do this yourself via multipass, it's an interesting solution specifically on Apple Silicon because nested virtualization is not available and lxc does not require a hypervisor .

kdrag0n 3y ago

OrbStack dev here — sorry, can't reveal too much, but some of it is documented here: https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture By "we" I assume you're referring to your company/employer, so I'm curious if there's any way the license could be more palatable short of being 100% free?

zxexz 3y ago
Nothing against this model, but your website states “OrbStack is completely free to use during beta, but it will become a paid product afterwards.”[0] Also, the rest of the page implies OrbStack will be charging for any commercial use. If this is the case, I don’t see how this is “free” in the sense that most people on this site interpret it. Have you thought about the FOSS model with support, maybe a Jetbrains style thing - adding enterprise/paid features on top of the FOSS stack? [0] https://docs.orbstack.dev/faq https://docs.orbstack.dev/faq
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Free can mean free as in freedom or free as in beer, most people even on this site do not use "free" to mean exclusively the former, or "libre" as it's better distinguished. It is well understood exactly what the sentence you quoted means, especially as they disambiguated it through saying it will be a paid product afterwards, so obviously meaning free as in the free as in beer sense.
  - zxexz 3y ago
    Oh, I full-heartedly understand and agree! However, I think referring to something as "free" when it's explicitly "free right now and probably not later" is a bit misleading. I doubt GP was trying to pull any wool over any eyes. In the enterprise context, especially, the differentiation is pretty important. Also, the page I linked does imply that it will become not free in the lunch sense of the term, for commercial users (already not free in the libre sense of the term, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that).
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      They explicitly say free during beta and paid afterwards so if anyone misunderstands that, that's on them. It's quite reasonable to have such phrasing and many other products also have similar business models.
      - zxexz 3y ago
        I was referring to GP’s comment, not the website. Otherwise, pretty much agreed.
alberth 3y ago
I think GP just means that OrbStack will no longer be free post beta, and that was their objection. I have no problem paying for quality products, which OrbStack appears to be … but developers hear the words “license” or “free” and then get hopeful they can get a free lunch. As such, a suggestion, just remove this line from your FAQ: “Educational and non-profit open-source licenses subject to approval. Commercial open-source developers must purchase a license.” Talking about open source in the same context of a paid subscription might be confusing people.
- rhaps0dy 3y ago
  > Talking about open source in the same context of a paid subscription might be confusing people. It's making some useful work though. It's only going to be free for non-profits who develop open-source software. (I work at a non-profit which makes some closed-source software, and I'm an Orbstack user, so I expect to pay when the time comes)
  - benterix 3y ago
    > I work at a non-profit which makes some closed-source software Out of curiosity: is it for internal use?
    - rhaps0dy 3y ago
      At the moment yes, but we're planning to share it with some similar organizations and independent researchers.
- kdrag0n 3y ago
  Yeah, I can understand that, but since it's for work I figured I'd ask whether it's a flat-out objection to anything paid, or if it's more to do with something specific about the license. Thanks for pointing that line out — just reworded it to be more clear.
rhaps0dy 3y ago
This diagram explains it very well, thanks! So there's only 1 VM, running a modified Linux kernel (https://github.com/orbstack/linux-macvirt/commits/mac-pub https://github.com/orbstack/linux-macvirt/commits/mac-pub) with a barebones userland. Then inside there's a bunch of souped-up chroots (probably LXC/LXD), running the various linux distribution VMs as well as one that just runs `dockerd`. Here it specifies that all the VMs share 1 kernel: https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture#linux-machines https://docs.orbstack.dev/architecture#linux-machines On top of this, it's fast because it uses Rosetta (which is very fast) and kdrag0n spent a lot of time optimizing various parts of the kernel and the resulting environment.

kiratp 3y ago

> We are only missing faster local development. Developer time is probably your most expensive resource. Saving $8/mo at the cost of dev time seems… suboptimal.

dijit 3y ago
Sometimes its more the issue that not owning your tools causes: A) forced changes which can eat your “savings” B) rent seeking (or: non-optional price increases like I’ve experienced with gitlab) C) The company pivots and leaves your tool behind to languish