6 ms·

No native docker support, no headless management options (enterprise strength), Limited QoS management, lack of robust python support (out of the box), interact

No native docker support, no headless management options (enterprise strength), Limited QoS management, lack of robust python support (out of the box), interactive user focused security model.

bredren 2y ago
>lack of robust python support (out of the box) What would robust python support oob look like?
- FergusArgyll 2y ago
  uv pre-installed! /s
flats 2y ago
I feel you on a lot of this! But out of the box Python support? Does anybody actually want that? It’s pretty darn quick & straightforward to get a Python environment up & running on MacOS. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean here.
- p_ing 2y ago
  No one would want OOTB Python support. You'd be stuck on a version you didn't want to use.
  - hedora 2y ago
    I want it. That way, like code I write in any other language, it’ll run reliably on other people’s machines a few years from now. I avoid writing python, so I’m usually the “other people” in that sentence.
    - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
      >it’ll run reliably on other people’s machines a few years from now That's optimistic. What if the system Python gets upgraded? For some reason, Python libraries tend to be super picky about the Python versions they support (not just Python 2 vs 3).
kstrauser 2y ago
1. I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. 2. If you mean MDM, there are several good options. Screen sharing and SSH are build in. 3. In what sense? 4. `uv python install whatever` is infinitely better than upgrading on the OS vendor’s schedule. 5. What does that affect?
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > 1. I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. That's using a Linux VM. The idea people are asking about is native process isolation. Yes you'd have to rebuild Docker containers based on some sort of (small) macOS base layer and Homebrew/Macports, but hey. Being able to even run nodejs or php with its thousands of files natively would be a gamechanger in performance.
  - hedora 2y ago
    Also, it were possible to containerize macos, or even do an unintended vm installation, then it’d be possible for apple to automatically regression test their stuff.
- devmor 2y ago
  >I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. The same way Windows users run them. In a linux VM. You don't get real on-hardware containerization.
  - naikrovek 2y ago
    surprisingly, Windows containers on Windows are not run in a VM. Well, not necessarily; they can be. It is definitely odd that Macs have no native container support, though, especially when you learn that Windows does.
    - devmor 2y ago
      That is an important point, I didn't really think of it since I've never had a reason to use Windows containers.
pmarreck 2y ago
> lack of robust python support There is no such thing. Tell me, which combination of the 15+ virtual environments, dependency management and Python version managers would you use? And how would you prevent "project collision" (where one Python project bumps into another one and one just stops working)? Example: SSL library differences across projects is a notorious culprit. Python is garbage and I don't understand why people put up with this crap unless you seriously only run ONE SINGLE Python project at a time and do not care what else silently breaks. Having to run every Python app in its own Docker image (which is the only real solution to this, if you don't want to learn Nix, which you really should, because it is better thanks to determinism... but entails its own set of issues) is not a reasonable compromise. Was so glad when the Elixir guys came out with this recently, to at least be able to use Python, but in a very controlled, not-insane way: https://dashbit.co/blog/running-python-in-elixir-its-fine https://dashbit.co/blog/running-python-in-elixir-its-fine
- simonw 2y ago
  uv (Not saying Apple should bundle that, but it's the best current answer to running many different Python projects without using something like Docker)
- mapcars 2y ago
  > at least be able to use Python, but in a very controlled, not-insane way Thats funny, about 10 years ago I started my career in a startup that had Python business logic running under Erlang (via custom connector) which handled supervision and task distribution, and it looked insane for me at the time. Even today I think it can be useful but is very hard to maintain, and containers are a good enough way to handle python.
  - pmarreck 2y ago
    > containers are a good enough way to handle python I disagree. My take on that is that they are an ugly enough way to handle Python. And, among other problems, don't permit you to easily mess with the code (one of many reasons why this is ugly). Need access to something stateful from the container app? That's another PITA.
duped 2y ago
> No native docker support Honest question: why do you want this in MacOS? Do you understand what docker does? (it's fundamentally a linux technology, unless you are asking for user namespaces and chroot w/o SIP on MacOS, but that doesn't make sense since the app sandbox exists). MacOS doesn't have the fundamental ecosystem problems that beget the need for docker. If the answer is "I want to run docker containers because I have them" then use orbstack or run linux through the virtualization framework (not Docker desktop). It's remarkably fast.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  Docker Desktop now offers an option to use the virtualization framework, and works pretty well. But you're still constantly running a VM because "docker is how devs work now right?". I agree with your comment.
- raydev 2y ago
  > MacOS doesn't have the fundamental ecosystem problems that beget the need for docker. Anyone wanting to run and manage their own suite of Macs to build multiple massive iOS and Mac apps at scale, for dozens or hundreds or thousands of developers deploying their changes. xcodebuild is by far the most obvious "needs native for max perf" but there are a few other tools that require macOS. But obviously if you have multiple repos and apps, you might require many different versions of the same tools to build everything. Sounds like a perfect use case for native containers.
- egorfine 2y ago
  > why do you want this in MacOS? I have a small rackmounted rendering farm using mac minis, which outperform everything in the Intel world, even order of magnitude more expensive. I run macOS on my personal and development computers for over a decade and I use Linux since inception on server side. My experience: running server-side macOS is such a PITA it's not even funny. It may even pretend it has ssh while in fact the ssh server is only available on good days and only after Remote Desktop logged in at least once. Launchd makes you wanna crave systemd. etc, etc. So, about docker. I would absolutely love to run my app in a containerized environment on a Mac in order to not touch the main OS.

No native docker support, no headless management options (enterprise strength), Limited QoS management, lack of robust python support (out of the box), interactive user focused security model.

bredren 2y ago

>lack of robust python support (out of the box) What would robust python support oob look like?

FergusArgyll 2y ago
uv pre-installed! /s

flats 2y ago

I feel you on a lot of this! But out of the box Python support? Does anybody actually want that? It’s pretty darn quick & straightforward to get a Python environment up & running on MacOS. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean here.

p_ing 2y ago
No one would want OOTB Python support. You'd be stuck on a version you didn't want to use.
- hedora 2y ago
  I want it. That way, like code I write in any other language, it’ll run reliably on other people’s machines a few years from now. I avoid writing python, so I’m usually the “other people” in that sentence.
  - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
    >it’ll run reliably on other people’s machines a few years from now That's optimistic. What if the system Python gets upgraded? For some reason, Python libraries tend to be super picky about the Python versions they support (not just Python 2 vs 3).

kstrauser 2y ago

1. I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. 2. If you mean MDM, there are several good options. Screen sharing and SSH are build in. 3. In what sense? 4. `uv python install whatever` is infinitely better than upgrading on the OS vendor’s schedule. 5. What does that affect?

mschuster91 2y ago
> 1. I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. That's using a Linux VM. The idea people are asking about is native process isolation. Yes you'd have to rebuild Docker containers based on some sort of (small) macOS base layer and Homebrew/Macports, but hey. Being able to even run nodejs or php with its thousands of files natively would be a gamechanger in performance.
- hedora 2y ago
  Also, it were possible to containerize macos, or even do an unintended vm installation, then it’d be possible for apple to automatically regression test their stuff.
devmor 2y ago
>I run Docker and Podman on my Macs. The same way Windows users run them. In a linux VM. You don't get real on-hardware containerization.
- naikrovek 2y ago
  surprisingly, Windows containers on Windows are not run in a VM. Well, not necessarily; they can be. It is definitely odd that Macs have no native container support, though, especially when you learn that Windows does.
  - devmor 2y ago
    That is an important point, I didn't really think of it since I've never had a reason to use Windows containers.

pmarreck 2y ago

> lack of robust python support There is no such thing. Tell me, which combination of the 15+ virtual environments, dependency management and Python version managers would you use? And how would you prevent "project collision" (where one Python project bumps into another one and one just stops working)? Example: SSL library differences across projects is a notorious culprit. Python is garbage and I don't understand why people put up with this crap unless you seriously only run ONE SINGLE Python project at a time and do not care what else silently breaks. Having to run every Python app in its own Docker image (which is the only real solution to this, if you don't want to learn Nix, which you really should, because it is better thanks to determinism... but entails its own set of issues) is not a reasonable compromise. Was so glad when the Elixir guys came out with this recently, to at least be able to use Python, but in a very controlled, not-insane way: https://dashbit.co/blog/running-python-in-elixir-its-fine https://dashbit.co/blog/running-python-in-elixir-its-fine

simonw 2y ago
uv (Not saying Apple should bundle that, but it's the best current answer to running many different Python projects without using something like Docker)
mapcars 2y ago
> at least be able to use Python, but in a very controlled, not-insane way Thats funny, about 10 years ago I started my career in a startup that had Python business logic running under Erlang (via custom connector) which handled supervision and task distribution, and it looked insane for me at the time. Even today I think it can be useful but is very hard to maintain, and containers are a good enough way to handle python.
- pmarreck 2y ago
  > containers are a good enough way to handle python I disagree. My take on that is that they are an ugly enough way to handle Python. And, among other problems, don't permit you to easily mess with the code (one of many reasons why this is ugly). Need access to something stateful from the container app? That's another PITA.

duped 2y ago

> No native docker support Honest question: why do you want this in MacOS? Do you understand what docker does? (it's fundamentally a linux technology, unless you are asking for user namespaces and chroot w/o SIP on MacOS, but that doesn't make sense since the app sandbox exists). MacOS doesn't have the fundamental ecosystem problems that beget the need for docker. If the answer is "I want to run docker containers because I have them" then use orbstack or run linux through the virtualization framework (not Docker desktop). It's remarkably fast.

jeffhuys 2y ago
Docker Desktop now offers an option to use the virtualization framework, and works pretty well. But you're still constantly running a VM because "docker is how devs work now right?". I agree with your comment.
raydev 2y ago
> MacOS doesn't have the fundamental ecosystem problems that beget the need for docker. Anyone wanting to run and manage their own suite of Macs to build multiple massive iOS and Mac apps at scale, for dozens or hundreds or thousands of developers deploying their changes. xcodebuild is by far the most obvious "needs native for max perf" but there are a few other tools that require macOS. But obviously if you have multiple repos and apps, you might require many different versions of the same tools to build everything. Sounds like a perfect use case for native containers.
egorfine 2y ago
> why do you want this in MacOS? I have a small rackmounted rendering farm using mac minis, which outperform everything in the Intel world, even order of magnitude more expensive. I run macOS on my personal and development computers for over a decade and I use Linux since inception on server side. My experience: running server-side macOS is such a PITA it's not even funny. It may even pretend it has ssh while in fact the ssh server is only available on good days and only after Remote Desktop logged in at least once. Launchd makes you wanna crave systemd. etc, etc. So, about docker. I would absolutely love to run my app in a containerized environment on a Mac in order to not touch the main OS.