9 ms·

Wonder how Docker feels about this. I'd assume a decent amount of Docker for Desktop is on Mac...

paxys 1y ago
Well it makes developing Docker Desktop infinitely easier for them, since they no longer need to start their own Linux VM under the hood. I think the software is "sticky" enough that people will still prefer to use Docker Desktop for the familiar CLI and UX, Docker Compose, and all the Docker-specific quirks that make migrating to a different container runtime basically impossible.
- prmoustache 1y ago
  I never used docker desktop and am struggling to understand what you are supposed to be doing with a gui in a docker/container context.
  - arjonagelhout 1y ago
    For me, Docker Desktop is simply an easy way to launch the Docker daemon and inspect some created images and their corresponding logs. Other than that, the cli suffices.
    - hiccuphippo 1y ago
      We had to remove Docker Desktop at my job (I think they started asking for money?) and moved to Lima/Colima. If this project means one less program to configure to get my docker containers running then I'm all for it.
      - queenkjuul 1y ago
        Docker desktop for commercial use requires a license and they don't release binaries for Mac other than desktop. Seems like their one route to monetization. I use docker for literally only one build that doesn't work on native macOS so i love the idea of switching to a simple standalone CLI
      - bruckie 1y ago
        I use Rancher Desktop plus the FOSS docker CLI from Homebrew. Works well, and has no licensing issues.
  - stackskipton 1y ago
    GUI lets you look at logs quickly, there is buttons to click quickly open http://localhost:<port> http://localhost:<port>, stop and start containers, get shell in container and bunch of other stuff that people developing or testing against containers need locally.
    - prmoustache 1y ago
      I am surprised a developer would not have chosen to redirect the port at run time already and would not be running the containers in the foreground in the first place.
      - phinnaeus 1y ago
        Dropbox copypasta goes here
        Spivak 1y ago
        I mean maybe but if you run your containers not via a GUI you get most of that for free or at worst with a docker logs or docker exec command. Do people learn docker not via the CLI?
        queenkjuul 1y ago
        I for one have been using docker on Linux for years and have to use a Mac at work, and I'm totally baffled by the fact i need to install docker desktop to use the CLI and don't get why you'd need or want the GUI. And like I'm not all anti-GUI, it's just that docker is one of those things I've never even imagined using a GUI for
        selcuka 1y ago
        I mean, it's nice to have a GUI when running multiple containers on Docker, or Kubernetes, but I've never used Docker Desktop on my work Mac either. For Kubernetes, something like K9s [1] or Headlamp [2] works fine. I remember seeing something similar for Docker but I can't remember the name. [1] https://k9scli.io/ https://k9scli.io/ [2] https://headlamp.dev/ https://headlamp.dev/
  - bdcravens 1y ago
    Very few use the GUI for things other than configuring Docker engine settings like memory, etc.
  - pxc 1y ago
    Imo, the GUI isn't really the most important part of things like Docker Desktop. The nice part is that they (a) set up the Linux VM that runs the Docker daemon for you and (b) handle the socket forwarding magic that lets you communicate with it "directly" by running the Docker client on the host OS. This is likewise true for Podman Desktop, Rancher Desktop, etc. The GUI is icing on the cake, imo.
  - dajtxx 1y ago
    The problem (as far as I can tell) is that for Windows and MacOS you can't install the docker daemon etc without installing Desktop. I have a Mac for work and containers are a pain. I've tried Podman, UTM, colima, Docker Desktop etc and it all boils down to the same thing - run a linux VM and have the command line utils cooperate with the VM to run the containers. It comes down to which solution has the least friction and irritations and Docker might still win there. My current setup is UTM running a debian VM which I share my source directory with and ssh into to run docker. This is simpler for my brain to understand because the linux VM isn't a hidden component I forget to manage. But it's not obvious how to mount the shared directory and I'm constantly running into networking problems - currently I cannot connect as myself and must sudo ssh for it to work. A reboot (of the Mac) used to fix it, but no longer does. I've given up trying to fix it and just sudo.
- pxc 1y ago
  Docker Desktop on Windows uses WSL to provide the Docker daemon, doesn't it? So Docker Desktop has a history of leaning into OS offerings for virtualizing Linux like this where they can.
  - cosmotic 1y ago
    Docker desktop on macos uses the Apple virtualization framework to run a Linux VM these days. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization
- coredog64 1y ago
  Unless this provides an extremely compatible Docker socket implementation, this is the answer. When Docker changed the licensing for Docker Desktop, my previous employer made it harder to get permission. However, there were a few tools that were in common usage, and once you mentioned that you used them, you got your permission. Some progress has been made to create a non-Docker implementation that integrates with all those random tools that expect to be able to yeet bytes into or out of the Docker socket, but I still hit blockers the last time I tried.
cogman10 1y ago
Probably about the same way they feel about podman.
- Kwpolska 1y ago
  Podman is fairly niche. This is an Apple product that Apple developer circles will push hard.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    I agree, Apple has a lot of weight. Podman, however, also has a fair bit of heft behind it (IBM via Redhat). I'll not deny that it's a bit niche, but not so much so that it's completely unknown.
  - xp84 1y ago
    I apologize if this sounds like a hot take, but "Apple developer circles," as in, people who use XCode at all and care about any part of Apple's toolchain[0], is a very small number of people compared to "All developers who happen to code on Macs." In my experience at least, the typical developer who uses macOS codes in VSCode on JS, Python, etc., groans when some file association accidentally launches XCode, and would likely prefer to use normal Docker like the do on their Linux servers, rather than proprietary Darwin weirdness. "Apple developer circles" to me means the few mostly indies who build non-electron Mac apps and non-ReactNative ios apps, but those developers mostly are writing client code and don't even touch servers. All this said, my above "gut feelings" don't explain why Apple would have bothered spending their time making this when Orbstack, Docker, etc. already meet the needs of the developers on Mac who actually need and use containers. [0]: besides the "Command line tools" that allow compilation to work, of course.
    - rollcat 1y ago
      > All this said, my above "gut feelings" don't explain why Apple would have bothered spending their time making this when Orbstack, Docker, etc. already meet the needs of the developers on Mac who actually need and use containers. Before Orbstack, running Docker on Macs was a total pain - the official desktop app is so awful, I doubt anyone at Docker is actually using it. Nevertheless, it was still too useful to let it pass. It was time either Docker or Apple stepped up, but they are both 10 years late to this party. Orbstack fixed the problem. It would be interesting to see the reaction from Danny Lee, he's hanging out on HN sometimes. I hope this framework ends up being a building block, rather than outright competition.
sneak 1y ago
Docker Desktop is closed source proprietary software and this is free software, so this is a win (for us, at least).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
n2d4 1y ago
This doesn't compete with Docker for Desktop, as more low-level than that. Docker for Desktop sits on-top of container/virtualization software (Hypervisor.framework and QEMU on Mac, WSL on Windows, containerd on Linux). So there's a good chance that future versions of Docker for Desktop will use this library, but they don't really compete with each other.
blinded 1y ago
Also the second they started charging podman dev picked up and that has gotten real good.

Well it makes developing Docker Desktop infinitely easier for them, since they no longer need to start their own Linux VM under the hood. I think the software is "sticky" enough that people will still prefer to use Docker Desktop for the familiar CLI and UX, Docker Compose, and all the Docker-specific quirks that make migrating to a different container runtime basically impossible.

prmoustache 1y ago
I never used docker desktop and am struggling to understand what you are supposed to be doing with a gui in a docker/container context.
- arjonagelhout 1y ago
  For me, Docker Desktop is simply an easy way to launch the Docker daemon and inspect some created images and their corresponding logs. Other than that, the cli suffices.
  - hiccuphippo 1y ago
    We had to remove Docker Desktop at my job (I think they started asking for money?) and moved to Lima/Colima. If this project means one less program to configure to get my docker containers running then I'm all for it.
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      Docker desktop for commercial use requires a license and they don't release binaries for Mac other than desktop. Seems like their one route to monetization. I use docker for literally only one build that doesn't work on native macOS so i love the idea of switching to a simple standalone CLI
    - bruckie 1y ago
      I use Rancher Desktop plus the FOSS docker CLI from Homebrew. Works well, and has no licensing issues.
- stackskipton 1y ago
  GUI lets you look at logs quickly, there is buttons to click quickly open http://localhost:<port> http://localhost:<port>, stop and start containers, get shell in container and bunch of other stuff that people developing or testing against containers need locally.
  - prmoustache 1y ago
    I am surprised a developer would not have chosen to redirect the port at run time already and would not be running the containers in the foreground in the first place.
    - phinnaeus 1y ago
      Dropbox copypasta goes here
      - Spivak 1y ago
        I mean maybe but if you run your containers not via a GUI you get most of that for free or at worst with a docker logs or docker exec command. Do people learn docker not via the CLI?
        queenkjuul 1y ago
        I for one have been using docker on Linux for years and have to use a Mac at work, and I'm totally baffled by the fact i need to install docker desktop to use the CLI and don't get why you'd need or want the GUI. And like I'm not all anti-GUI, it's just that docker is one of those things I've never even imagined using a GUI for
        selcuka 1y ago
        I mean, it's nice to have a GUI when running multiple containers on Docker, or Kubernetes, but I've never used Docker Desktop on my work Mac either. For Kubernetes, something like K9s [1] or Headlamp [2] works fine. I remember seeing something similar for Docker but I can't remember the name. [1] https://k9scli.io/ https://k9scli.io/ [2] https://headlamp.dev/ https://headlamp.dev/
- bdcravens 1y ago
  Very few use the GUI for things other than configuring Docker engine settings like memory, etc.
- pxc 1y ago
  Imo, the GUI isn't really the most important part of things like Docker Desktop. The nice part is that they (a) set up the Linux VM that runs the Docker daemon for you and (b) handle the socket forwarding magic that lets you communicate with it "directly" by running the Docker client on the host OS. This is likewise true for Podman Desktop, Rancher Desktop, etc. The GUI is icing on the cake, imo.
- dajtxx 1y ago
  The problem (as far as I can tell) is that for Windows and MacOS you can't install the docker daemon etc without installing Desktop. I have a Mac for work and containers are a pain. I've tried Podman, UTM, colima, Docker Desktop etc and it all boils down to the same thing - run a linux VM and have the command line utils cooperate with the VM to run the containers. It comes down to which solution has the least friction and irritations and Docker might still win there. My current setup is UTM running a debian VM which I share my source directory with and ssh into to run docker. This is simpler for my brain to understand because the linux VM isn't a hidden component I forget to manage. But it's not obvious how to mount the shared directory and I'm constantly running into networking problems - currently I cannot connect as myself and must sudo ssh for it to work. A reboot (of the Mac) used to fix it, but no longer does. I've given up trying to fix it and just sudo.
pxc 1y ago
Docker Desktop on Windows uses WSL to provide the Docker daemon, doesn't it? So Docker Desktop has a history of leaning into OS offerings for virtualizing Linux like this where they can.
- cosmotic 1y ago
  Docker desktop on macos uses the Apple virtualization framework to run a Linux VM these days. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization
coredog64 1y ago
Unless this provides an extremely compatible Docker socket implementation, this is the answer. When Docker changed the licensing for Docker Desktop, my previous employer made it harder to get permission. However, there were a few tools that were in common usage, and once you mentioned that you used them, you got your permission. Some progress has been made to create a non-Docker implementation that integrates with all those random tools that expect to be able to yeet bytes into or out of the Docker socket, but I still hit blockers the last time I tried.

cogman10 1y ago

Probably about the same way they feel about podman.

Kwpolska 1y ago
Podman is fairly niche. This is an Apple product that Apple developer circles will push hard.
- cogman10 1y ago
  I agree, Apple has a lot of weight. Podman, however, also has a fair bit of heft behind it (IBM via Redhat). I'll not deny that it's a bit niche, but not so much so that it's completely unknown.
- xp84 1y ago
  I apologize if this sounds like a hot take, but "Apple developer circles," as in, people who use XCode at all and care about any part of Apple's toolchain[0], is a very small number of people compared to "All developers who happen to code on Macs." In my experience at least, the typical developer who uses macOS codes in VSCode on JS, Python, etc., groans when some file association accidentally launches XCode, and would likely prefer to use normal Docker like the do on their Linux servers, rather than proprietary Darwin weirdness. "Apple developer circles" to me means the few mostly indies who build non-electron Mac apps and non-ReactNative ios apps, but those developers mostly are writing client code and don't even touch servers. All this said, my above "gut feelings" don't explain why Apple would have bothered spending their time making this when Orbstack, Docker, etc. already meet the needs of the developers on Mac who actually need and use containers. [0]: besides the "Command line tools" that allow compilation to work, of course.
  - rollcat 1y ago
    > All this said, my above "gut feelings" don't explain why Apple would have bothered spending their time making this when Orbstack, Docker, etc. already meet the needs of the developers on Mac who actually need and use containers. Before Orbstack, running Docker on Macs was a total pain - the official desktop app is so awful, I doubt anyone at Docker is actually using it. Nevertheless, it was still too useful to let it pass. It was time either Docker or Apple stepped up, but they are both 10 years late to this party. Orbstack fixed the problem. It would be interesting to see the reaction from Danny Lee, he's hanging out on HN sometimes. I hope this framework ends up being a building block, rather than outright competition.

sneak 1y ago

Docker Desktop is closed source proprietary software and this is free software, so this is a win (for us, at least).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

n2d4 1y ago

This doesn't compete with Docker for Desktop, as more low-level than that. Docker for Desktop sits on-top of container/virtualization software (Hypervisor.framework and QEMU on Mac, WSL on Windows, containerd on Linux). So there's a good chance that future versions of Docker for Desktop will use this library, but they don't really compete with each other.

blinded 1y ago

Also the second they started charging podman dev picked up and that has gotten real good.