94
macOS 26 introduces the Containerization Framework: "enables developers to create, download, or run Linux container images directly on Mac" (www.apple.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 30 points 1 year ago (15 children)

WSL for Mac?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Why do you need WSL?

    MacOS is BSD, so you can do most Linux things with an issue. But some of the BSD tools have different options the the GNU tools.

    We moved to Mac years ago and it makes doing almost everything I do a simples

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    because docker. it hard requires a linux kernel and is extremely slow on mac, just like it was on windows until they integrated with wsl.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I see, I don't use docker all that much on my works Mac. So haven't noticed the speed.

    Also is it the storage share that's slow? As docker desktop is a VM

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    well docker on mac is a fully emulated x86 vm. everything is slow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    It's not that slow. https://www.imore.com/tests-show-apples-m1-emulates-x86-faster-intel-can-run-it-natively

    Edit: actually I just benchmarked it and containerized x86 Linux runs at like 40% of native speed. So yeah, that's pretty freakin slow.

    FWIW arm64 containers ran at nearly native speed, so it's the x86 emulation that seems to be causing the slowdown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    yeah last i worked with it i was the first person in the company to evaluate the arm macs, and it basically couldn't run our application at all. took a full 40 minutes to spin up, then crashed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    No. Mac is NOT BSD. Mac took the BSD user space from 20+ years ago. That's all.

    I'm not sure why this myth keeps being repeated over and over.

    If that's all it takes to "be" BSD, then windows is also BSD since the entire windows network stack was lifted from BSD

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    That's very cool! But, my work needs to run proprietary x86 containers not ARM ones. We are sadly being "forced" (they rather still not turn to open source software) to move to Windows. It's a shame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I haven't checked but it should be possible?

    macOS has had support for x64 binaries in Linux VMs for a few years now, using their Rosetta 2 translation layer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    like a macpak?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wonder if this opens up any new opportunities for cool Distrobox usecases.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You can already sort of hack distrobox-like functionality, but the biggest problem with doing so is that there's no Wayland or X11 server running on macOS, so GUI applications don't work unless you install something like XQuartz, and even then, it's a pretty janky experience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I looks like it only allows 1 virtual machine at a time so docker-compose wouldn't work

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Docker to my knowledge still requires a real Linux running somewhere, somehow. In MacOS, it has traditionally been some sort of a VM running under the hood via docker-machine. As this is emulationvirtualization, it has a rather severe overhead.

    This containerization framework sounds like it might enable a more light-weight version of Linux, somewhat similar to what Windows has had via WSL for some time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    So Apple computers actually turn useful?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I hope I can run ollama in a container with full power, can't install it natively on my work computer

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • 43 comments in c/linux@lemmy.ml view that post
    23 comments in c/linux@programming.dev view that post
    6 comments in c/macos@lemmy.world view that post
    2 comments in c/linuxfurs@pawb.social view that post