3 ms·

Docker desktop will run a virtual machine for you. But you can simply install docker engine in wsl or in a VM on mac exactly like you would on linux (you give u

Docker desktop will run a virtual machine for you. But you can simply install docker engine in wsl or in a VM on mac exactly like you would on linux (you give up maybe automatic port forwarding from the VM to your host)

rovr138 1y ago
> But you can simply install docker engine in wsl or in a VM on mac exactly like you would on linux (you give up maybe automatic port forwarding from the VM to your host) and sharing files from the host, ide integration, etc. Not that it can't be done. But doing it is not just, 'run it'. Now you manage a vm, change your workflow, etc.
- mpyne 1y ago
  Of course, but that's the value-add of Docker Desktop. But you don't have to tie yourself to it, or even if you do use it for a bit to get going faster, you have a migration path open to doing it yourself should you need it.
linuxftw 1y ago
This. I run docker in WSL. I also do 100% of my development in WSL (for work, anyway). Windows is basically just my web browser.
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  Ironic username. As a die hard, WSL aint bad though. I just can't deal with an OS that automatically quarantines bittorrent clients, decides to override local administrator policies via windows updates and pops up ad notifications.
  - mmcnl 1y ago
    I personally use Windows + WSL2 and for work use macOS. I prefer Windows + WSL2 by a longshot. It just "works". macOS never "just works" for me. Colima is fine but requires a static memory allocation for the VM, it doesn't have the level of polish that WSL2 has. Brew is awful compared to apt (which you get with WSL2 because it's just Linux). And then there's the windowing system of macOS that feels like it's straight from the 90s. "System tray" icons that accumulate over time and are distracting, awful window management with clunky animations, the near useless dock (clicking on VS Code shows all my 6 IDEs, why?). Windows and Linux are much modern in that regard. The Mac hardware is amazing, well worth its price, but the OS feels like it's from a decade ago.
  - linuxftw 1y ago
    All my personal machines run linux. At work my choices are Mac or Windows. If Macs were still x86_64 I might choose that and run a VM, but I have no interest in learning the pitfalls of cross arch emulation or dealing with arm64 linux distro for a development machine.
    - chuckadams 1y ago
      I never notice the difference between arm64 and x86 environments, since I'm flipping between them all the time just because the arm boxes are so much cheaper. The only time it matters to me is building containers, and then it's just a matter of passing `--platform=linux/amd64,linux/arm64` to `docker buildx`. If you're building really arch-specific stuff, then I could see not wanting to go there, but Rosetta support is pretty much seamless. It's just slower.
  - croon 1y ago
    +1 I use WSL for work because we have no linux client options. It's generally fine, but both forced windows update reboots as well as seemingly random wsl reboots (assuming because of some component update?) can really bite you if you're in the middle of something.

rovr138 1y ago

> But you can simply install docker engine in wsl or in a VM on mac exactly like you would on linux (you give up maybe automatic port forwarding from the VM to your host) and sharing files from the host, ide integration, etc. Not that it can't be done. But doing it is not just, 'run it'. Now you manage a vm, change your workflow, etc.

mpyne 1y ago
Of course, but that's the value-add of Docker Desktop. But you don't have to tie yourself to it, or even if you do use it for a bit to get going faster, you have a migration path open to doing it yourself should you need it.

linuxftw 1y ago

This. I run docker in WSL. I also do 100% of my development in WSL (for work, anyway). Windows is basically just my web browser.

CuriouslyC 1y ago
Ironic username. As a die hard, WSL aint bad though. I just can't deal with an OS that automatically quarantines bittorrent clients, decides to override local administrator policies via windows updates and pops up ad notifications.
- mmcnl 1y ago
  I personally use Windows + WSL2 and for work use macOS. I prefer Windows + WSL2 by a longshot. It just "works". macOS never "just works" for me. Colima is fine but requires a static memory allocation for the VM, it doesn't have the level of polish that WSL2 has. Brew is awful compared to apt (which you get with WSL2 because it's just Linux). And then there's the windowing system of macOS that feels like it's straight from the 90s. "System tray" icons that accumulate over time and are distracting, awful window management with clunky animations, the near useless dock (clicking on VS Code shows all my 6 IDEs, why?). Windows and Linux are much modern in that regard. The Mac hardware is amazing, well worth its price, but the OS feels like it's from a decade ago.
- linuxftw 1y ago
  All my personal machines run linux. At work my choices are Mac or Windows. If Macs were still x86_64 I might choose that and run a VM, but I have no interest in learning the pitfalls of cross arch emulation or dealing with arm64 linux distro for a development machine.
  - chuckadams 1y ago
    I never notice the difference between arm64 and x86 environments, since I'm flipping between them all the time just because the arm boxes are so much cheaper. The only time it matters to me is building containers, and then it's just a matter of passing `--platform=linux/amd64,linux/arm64` to `docker buildx`. If you're building really arch-specific stuff, then I could see not wanting to go there, but Rosetta support is pretty much seamless. It's just slower.
- croon 1y ago
  +1 I use WSL for work because we have no linux client options. It's generally fine, but both forced windows update reboots as well as seemingly random wsl reboots (assuming because of some component update?) can really bite you if you're in the middle of something.