4 ms·
It'd be nice to get a suitable cross-platform container format, that would let you create a deployable container across multiple OSes. Process control groups e
by Aqueous 13y ago
It'd be nice to get a suitable cross-platform container format, that would let you create a deployable container across multiple OSes.
Process control groups exist in Darwin/Mac OS X - I wish you could sandbox packages with private network namespaces and filesystems as well.
- est 13y agoI don't understand, binary/lib usually doesn't share across platforms.
- Aqueous 13y agoRight. You could have a container which has universal dylibs and static libs for x86_64/i386 compiled for Darwin in one directory and ELF shared objects and static libraries compiled for x86_64/i386 for Linux, logic to detect the platform and the main application binaries compiled for multiple platforms. And why not throw Windows in there too? This would create a universal container, assuming all major OSes acquire facilities for process control groups, namespaces and chroot. Disk space is no longer a consideration. The containers can be as big as we want - why not make them run natively everywhere?
- vidarh 13y agoWhy bother? I'd be far simpler, and more resource efficient, to run whatever the user prefers of Xen/Virtualbox/Vmware or "bare" Linux as the base and not have to create monstrous franken-containers.
- Aqueous 13y agoWell, speaking from personal experience, I develop on Mac OS X and deploy to Linux. It would be helpful to be able to run the same container on both for testing purposes.
- justincormack 13y agocgroup type interfaces are not very portable, havent really looked at the interfaces. You could use a tun/tap interface and a userspace network stack (eg NetBSD rump kernel is portable).