They are not all the same when you get down to it, though. The "different opinions" about how to plumb traffic back out from a container (DNAT/SNAT via a bridge, macvlan, whether using a CNI directly is supported), whether a service/daemon should be the primary entrypoint (docker, containerd) or whether it's optional (podman), whether they speak to runc at all (containerd/docker yes, podman defaults to crun, kata is also an option, and others), what kind of storage overlays and plugins are allowed, etc are more than "opinions".
The devil is in the details. Colima is "basically a drop in replacement for docket desktop" under the assumption that you aren't doing anything very complex with Docker. In particular, complex networking is likely to fail/explode.
Does Colima work with Docker Compose?
I abandoned Docker on the Mac because of that, and haven't touched it since. That was early 2021; maybe it's faster now.
I mean I want to use containers but on top of setting up the host, they require composing containers (even when ready made for customizations), networking, logging and fight for more memory when using memory hungry stuff in conjunction (like elastic or other db).
If my main job was devops, I suppose I would make myself more valuable by doing everything in containers but when I deploy an app it is because I have to on top of many other duties so being able to not only setup but troubleshoot and fix outages quickly is most important (and I hope a full time devops person, if I ever get one) will help me migrate all that some day so it looks nice and neat.
- spyware (transmits private data off your machine without consent when it crashes, which it does a lot)
- nonfree software
- has a git repo so you don't notice it's nonfree software
Colima is a little but lower level but works very well. Rancher Desktop had some struggles a while back but most of the developers who are new to the company seem to be using it for local kubernetes.
That's the key part: Your positive experience is with PCs running linux I guess.
Slight aside though, they have used the Material theme for MKDocs, which is much more than a theme, it's a whole extension package of bells a whistles for MKDocs. I'm not actually too keen on "Material for MKDocs" [0], I like all the clever plugins, but the theme itself I find distracting and too "loud". The theme jumps out more than the content itself.
In the Python ecosystem Material for MKDocs seems to be the leading default at the moment, however I much prefer Furo for Sphinx, it's much cleaner, it's about putting the content front and centre. It does also have a similar set of plugins for Sphinx adding those bells and whistles.
[0]: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/customization/#a...
[1]: https://twitter.com/squidfunk/status/1598341366869856257/pho...
I actually have a Manjaro laptop that I used for work for almost a year and it was great. Except for the hardware (generic cheapo wintel garbage). I'm back on a Mac now. Nice M1 laptop. Fast, silent, good keyboard and screen. Wonderful to use. Mostly my biggest headache is muscle memory for different key bindings and keyboard layout because I still use the linux laptop once in a while. But otherwise all my stuff (including docker) just works on both sides.
Docker for mac is nice but the licensing can be a bit of a show stopper. I've yet to try some of the alternatives mentioned here. I did use qemu on my old intel mac for a while with some simple environment variables to make the homebrew version of docker use ssh to my vm. It works but it can be a bit wonky with things like port forwarding and volumes. You can make all that work but it is a bit fiddly. Most of the proper alternatives make this a bit more seamless. But I'd recommend trying it just to de-mystify the whole process.
There is a docker desktop for linux even; which just goes to show that it does do a few things that are worthwhile having for some people. Even on Linux. I'm mostly a cli guy so I don't care about the UI/UX that it provides. But some people seem to like that.
The question applies both ways: what advantage (other than native container support) do I get by running Linux?
Personally I would love to see OCI containers supported natively on other operating systems. Currently you get the same VM crapshow on e.g. OpenBSD, except the community is several orders of magnitude smaller, so you don't even get prepackaged solutions.
> Personally I would love to see OCI containers supported natively on other operating systems. Currently you get the same VM crapshow on e.g. OpenBSD, except the community is several orders of magnitude smaller, so you don't even get prepackaged solutions.
Talk to your OS vendor. They are the ones who are preventing this from working.
But I often don’t. When I’m using Docker on my Mac it’s usually because I’m trying to use Docker. I need to use an existing Docker container or build a new one to fit some purpose with a Dockerfile.
I guess it’s nice that there would be a simpler way to launch one-off containers or containers for myself that aren’t expected to work like every other Docker container.
Is this a common need? Is there something that makes this more than I’ve noticed? The fact I work in a “Docker for containers” place may be preventing me from seeing what would make this shine.
Sublime is just one case. We had a Python service running in an Alpine container because it was thought as "mean and lean" by someone. Sound choice, right?
Guess what: we used a handful of (popular) Python modules that are backed by native libraries and PyPi didn't have musl-linked versions for them. The "mean and lean" Alpine-based image ended up weighing more than a debian-slim-based image.
IIRC npm will compile native extensions, sounds like PyPi (is that a package manager?) distributes binaries.
https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/package/edge/testing/x86_64/cod...
As someone with MacAlpine heritage I have never been more disappointed in two letters, though.
