3 ms·
I really wish Apple, for instance, would enable the same process/network namespacing that enables LXC to work. I'm not sure what the state of Windows is with re
by Aqueous 13y ago
I really wish Apple, for instance, would enable the same process/network namespacing that enables LXC to work. I'm not sure what the state of Windows is with respect to virtual network namespaces and process namespaces and control groups, but if the two other major OSes enable these basic features, it is easy to imagine universal containers that run everywhere.
- rdtsc 13y agoApple could choose to support LXC. FreeBSD systems have jails, so another way forward was if Apple support that, Docker could wrap a generic API on top of that. Much like libvirt is doing with various VM hosting solutions.
- nickstinemates 13y agoOr Docker could gracefully degrade to using chroot on OS X (providing a different type of isolation.) This is a plan. One of the things Docker needs to get better at expressing is that A Docker container != Linux Containers. It may currently Build/Provision/Execute inside of a Linux Container (provided by LXC) but that is an (albeit important) implementation detail.