3 ms·

it differs by lacking all the cool options that makes vmware and virtualbox good products, but apple users will praise it as a benefit "bind mounts? I'm better

it differs by lacking all the cool options that makes vmware and virtualbox good products, but apple users will praise it as a benefit "bind mounts? I'm better without it"

coldtea 5mo ago
Funny how confidently people can mock while knowing nothing about the specific tech discussed and the different targets. I'd google: VirtualBox vs containers.
- pmontra 5mo ago
  It's called a container machine but it's a virtual machine. I quote from https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/docs/technical-overview.md https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/docs/technical-... > container runs containers differently. Using the open source Containerization package, it runs a lightweight VM for each container that you create. This approach has the following properties: > * Security: Each container has the isolation properties of a full VM, using a minimal set of core utilities and dynamic libraries to reduce resource utilization and attack surface. > * Privacy: When sharing host data using container, you mount only necessary data into each VM. With a shared VM, you need to mount all data that you may ever want to use into the VM, so that it can be mounted selectively into containers. > * Performance: Containers created using container require less memory than full VMs, with boot times that are comparable to containers running in a shared VM. So: you build it as a container image and MacOS starts a VM to run it. Edit: quite unusually for a container it runs systemd. They give an example "systemctl start postgresql".
  - coldtea 4mo ago
    Obviously you still run a virtual machine to provide the Linux part. But it's a tiny one, tightly integrated with macOS hypervisor, and the interface is standard OCI-compatible containers/images. It's not Virtualbox style VM.

3 ms·

it differs by lacking all the cool options that makes vmware and virtualbox good products, but apple users will praise it as a benefit "bind mounts? I'm better

by iririririr 5mo ago

it differs by lacking all the cool options that makes vmware and virtualbox good products, but apple users will praise it as a benefit "bind mounts? I'm better without it"

coldtea 5mo ago
Funny how confidently people can mock while knowing nothing about the specific tech discussed and the different targets. I'd google: VirtualBox vs containers.
- pmontra 5mo ago
  It's called a container machine but it's a virtual machine. I quote from https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/docs/technical-overview.md https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/docs/technical-... > container runs containers differently. Using the open source Containerization package, it runs a lightweight VM for each container that you create. This approach has the following properties: > * Security: Each container has the isolation properties of a full VM, using a minimal set of core utilities and dynamic libraries to reduce resource utilization and attack surface. > * Privacy: When sharing host data using container, you mount only necessary data into each VM. With a shared VM, you need to mount all data that you may ever want to use into the VM, so that it can be mounted selectively into containers. > * Performance: Containers created using container require less memory than full VMs, with boot times that are comparable to containers running in a shared VM. So: you build it as a container image and MacOS starts a VM to run it. Edit: quite unusually for a container it runs systemd. They give an example "systemctl start postgresql".
  - coldtea 4mo ago
    Obviously you still run a virtual machine to provide the Linux part. But it's a tiny one, tightly integrated with macOS hypervisor, and the interface is standard OCI-compatible containers/images. It's not Virtualbox style VM.