Honestly, Apple either need to support native containerization in the MacOS kernel (allowing people to create MacOS native images) or help bring Linux to the MBP.
Docker based workflows are rubbish on my MBP.
Docker based workflows are rubbish on my MBP.
I think Linux running flawlessly, with full hardware acceleration, all the drivers and equal or close battery life on a MBP would make it the best laptop money could buy. Until that day, it's a ferrari with square wheels
Not sure what you mean by that, hypervisor is what allows the VMs to exist.
Anyway, containers are a Linux thing so I use a Linux laptop when working with containers. No VM is needed and life is great.
Hypervisors are one method of running virtual machines, you also have classical virtualisation methods and when I bring up the virtual machines being slow, I always get someone who pushes up their glasses with an "well actually its a Hypervisor running it, so it's essentially native speed".
I find Linux is a much nicer development environment all around though.
[Edit] Yup, already got one.
What do you mean by “classical virtualisation methods”, actual CPU emulation so you can run e.g. PowerPC on x86?
There is nothing unclear about what I said, I understand that hypervisors are supposed to be fast "almost native speed!". I also know that running Docker/Podman in Linux on MacOS isn't fast for many reasons.
I don't think misnome is trying to be pedantic either, I think we're both unclear as to what you're trying to say.
Edit: I'm also dubious that hypervisors always offer "native" speed. To me this seems like it depends a lot on the hypervisor, the workload, the guest OS, etc.
But anyway prior to that it used VirtualBox (on Mac) if I remember correctly, which is a full virtualisation environment.
Anyway, taking a guess at what you're saying: do you mean full software virtualization vs. hardware-assisted virtualization? If so, I would agree with you that even best-case performance of HA VMs is not quite bare-metal; sometimes it's close enough to not matter much.
Virtualised OS are obviously "slightly" slower because they now don't have 100% of a system to use, and usually require a dedicated chunk of the system RAM, but usually what people actually mean by saying they are slower is because often they don't have direct hardware peripheral access (e.g. their own dedicated network card and disk drives) and the hypervisor emulates some amount of the system. This is the case with the most accessible linux VMs that run docker, because simulating the block devices on top of the MacOS filesystem is slow.
Docker itself is none of these, it's a fancy chroot enabled by linux kernel features, so _requires_ running on top of linux or a sufficiently linux-like compatibility layer.
So you see why it's somewhat incoherent and makes it sound like you are talking out of your ass when you complain that Hyperkit is a hypervisor but "Virtual machines aren't", but all these horrible people keep disagreeing with you.
Currently trialing nix-shell (https://nixos.org/manual/nix/stable/command-ref/nix-shell.ht...) in the iOS team (this team doesn't need to deploy software to servers, so its a small trial for now to make sure certain build tools are useable and on the right version for our build), but see no reason why it couldn't extend to other similar workflows in other teams.
My problem with Nix is, just like Rust, while it provides a very high ROI, the barrier to entry seems very steep; and unlike Rust, the documentation still leaves a lot to wish for. I'd go all-in on it right now, but I'm (rightfully, I guess?) scared of Nix-unique problems that will take 10x the effort to address than the mess that we're currently dealing with.