4 ms·

Note that this is about Virtualization.framework (Apple's first party VMM). OpenBSD worked on Hypervisor.framework + qemu since a very long time.

• cpach 9mo ago
  Good point. The naming of those frameworks is sooo confusing. IMHO, nearly impossible to not mix them up.
  • carlm42 9mo ago
    My mental model is that each of these covers a different layer of the stack, from lowest to highest: * hypervisor-framework handles the hypervisor bits, like creating virtual machines, virtualising hardware resources, basically a C API on top of Apple's hypervisor * virtualization-framework is a higher-level API, meant to make it easy to run a full-blown VM with an OS and hardware integration, without having to reinvent the integration with lower-level primitives that hypervisor-framework provides * containerization-framework uses virtualization-framework to run Linux containers on macOS in microVMs. By analogy to not mix them up, it's a bit like KVM > QEMU > containerd. Hope this helps!
    • Angostura 9mo ago
      Well, it help me. So thanks!
• tannhaeuser 9mo ago
  Out of my depth here. Is that the one Tahoe was introducing? What did it solve that was impossible before?
  • m132 9mo ago
    Virtualization.framework was introduced in Big Sur. It builds on top of Hypervisor.framework and is essentially Apple's QEMU (in some ways quite literally, it implements QEMU's pvpanic protocol for example). Before QEMU and other VMMs gained ARM64 Hypervisor.framework support, it was the only way to run virtual machines on ARM Macs and still is the only official way to virtualize ARM macOS. The new Tahoe framework you're probably thinking of is Containerization, which is a WSL2-esque wrapper around Virtualization.framework allowing for easy installation of Linux containers.
    • archy_ 9mo ago
      >a WSL2-esque wrapper around Virtualization.framework allowing for easy installation of Linux containers. So Linux is now a first class citizen on both Windows and Mac? I guess it really is true that 'if you can't beat em, join em.' Jobs must be rolling in his grave.
      • trentnelson 9mo ago
        I mean to be fair, WSL1 and WSL2 are extremely successful engineering efforts by Microsoft. I can’t imagine having to go back to the Cygwin days.
        • freedomben 9mo ago
          I'm one of the few I think who really liked Cygwin. Far from perfect of course, but I even still prefer it to WSL depending on what I'm doing.
      • thebiss 9mo ago
        It's well supported by the architecture. You may be interested in: - Lima - wsl2-like access to a virtual machine https://github.com/lima-vm/lima/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/lima-vm/lima/blob/master/README.md - vfkit - CLI creation and management of applehv VMs https://github.com/crc-org/vfkit https://github.com/crc-org/vfkit - podman machine - easily run x86 containers in CoreOs, via the podman CLI https://docs.podman.io/en/latest/markdown/podman-machine.1.html https://docs.podman.io/en/latest/markdown/podman-machine.1.h...
• atmosx 9mo ago
  Oh good point. I mixed it up, UTM is using qemu under hood, but as someone mentioned now OpenBSD snapshot boots with qemu seemlesly. It's still virtualised though.
  • irusensei 9mo ago
    It can also use the apple native hypervisor.
    • atmosx 9mo ago
      Tried it earlier using UTM and the Apple hypervisor but didn’t boot.