620 pointsby timsneath7 hours ago56 comments
  • aspeckt_1122 minutes ago
    This is pretty cool - being able to bring your own container machine image goes a long way to helping it's adoption.

    I started using Colima a couple of years ago because I got bored of how bad Docker Desktop was and just started using the CLI / the "Services" tool window in whatever Jetbrains IDE I was using at the time. I can't see myself moving away from it any time - having multiple profiles is an absolute winner of a feature for me there, but maybe the next time I set up a Mac from scratch I'll have a play with this.

  • timsneath6 hours ago
    To clarify a few comments here: this is not only OCI containers: container machines add support for persistence and filesystem mounting, making container machines a great lightweight Linux environment for developers using macOS. More details here: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2026/389
    • bogantech40 minutes ago
      > filesystem mounting

      How is this different to bind mounts

    • jjtheblunt3 hours ago
      > ... highly integrated Linux environment that works seamlessly on your Mac. ...

      Which kernel is running, and is it hosted in hypervisor.framework, as is done with UTM (when not using the qemu mode)?

      • Scarbutt2 hours ago
        The katas container kernel by default.
    • Onavo6 hours ago
      Ah, the Darwin/BSD Subsystem for Linux.
      • CGamesPlay6 hours ago
        Not quite, it’s still a VM. And while it supports virtio balloon for growing RAM, it doesn’t yet support releasing that RAM back to the host. And there isn’t a convenient way to shrink the sparse disk images as they grow yet, either.
        • AlexB1386 hours ago
          Isn't the Windows subsystem for Linux (the reference there) also a VM?
          • gsnedders6 hours ago
            Only WSL2; WSL1 was an actual subsystem.
            • selcuka5 hours ago
              So this is Darwin/BSD Subsystem for Linux 2.
              • rvz3 hours ago
                Yes.
            • LoganDark5 hours ago
              WSL1 was so cool, WSL2 made it boring and isolated.
              • TylerE5 hours ago
                Back in my day you to to download a couple GB worth of cygwin, and that wasn't an actual environment, basically just a GNU toolchain compiled for windows. But it got you like....grep and bash and stuff that ran natively on windows which was kinda cool.
                • qalmakka2 hours ago
                  Does any older folk here remembers when NT was the Cool New Thing (TM) and it had by design support to multiple subsystems plopped over the NT API, and Win32 was just one of them alongside POSIX (Interix) and OS/2? There was even a _very short_ time span when Interix was actually usable (it was extremely short though)
                  • pjmlpan hour ago
                    Yes, the only reason I cared for Linux in first place was that the POSIX support wasn't that good.

                    I am convinced that if POSIX subsystem was UNIX serious, GNU/Linux would never taken off on PC, and the whole would be divided between SGI, HP-UX, Solaris, Aix and Windows NT.

                    • hnlmorgan hour ago
                      There were already better free options than Linux when Linux first started gaining traction.

                      The reason Linux grew in the 90s was because it was part of the hacker culture. Not because better options didn’t exist.

                      Kids liked the fact that Linux was a free-for-all, anything-goes, platform. It wasn’t stuffy like Unix and it wasn’t proprietary like Windows.

                      Then those kids grew up and became decision makers themselves. And we started to see Linux replace FreeBSD and commercial Unixes.

                      • pjmlp20 minutes ago
                        Which ones? BSD was tied in a lawsuit that left doubts on its future.

                        Minix was a toy OS for university teachings.

                        Coherent was commercial.

                        Nothing else was there on the PC market.

                • noduerme4 hours ago
                  Cygwin was fun. I'd done zero development on Windows, but about 10 years ago I had to figure out how to deploy some nightly shell scripts across a bunch of local computers in a few dozen offices, where about 80% were MacOS and the rest were Windows. I don't remember exactly how I rigged it, but basically cygwin allowed me to keep the scripts as they were and trigger them in place, with a few small modifications.

                  I never want to deal with that again ;)

                  [edit] fwiw, Termux on Android is similarly a fun pseudo-environment. It's a nice and helpful toy.

                  • TylerE4 hours ago
                    The biggest issue I remember is directory seperators... windows of course using \ which bash would then interpret as an escape. Cygwin mostly papered over that from what I can recall, but it could lead to some weirdness, like sometimes you'd get C:\\path\\es\\like\\this
                    • bschwindHN2 hours ago
                      We should be using the baguette emoji for path separators for cross-platform compatibility.

                      https://old.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/96ufiz/pro...

                    • rpeden4 hours ago
                      You could also use forward slashes, like C:/path/subpath, which has worked since Windows 1.0/DOS 2.0.

                      That's handy when you're entering paths in a Cygwin/MSYS Bash shell, but might not help much if you're trying to parse or otherwise work with existing patgh variables composed with backslashes.

                      • TylerE4 hours ago
                        Yes, you could if you were entering them manually, but some apps that generated file names would screw it up. I think they were using some sort of stdlib function to get the path seperator. Forward slash paths working in native windows apps also wasn't quite a given, either. Keep in mind this was a loooong time ago... like windows xp era maybe, even.
                        • noduermean hour ago
                          Yeah, I recall directory paths being the biggest PITA with running scripts in cygwin. But I mean, that was a very minor set of things to fix compared to what would've had to be written in anything else available at the time.

                          Doing retail office deployments of custom code on employee computers is a weird niche, and you find whatever works and hope you can maintain it somehow. Cygwin was awesome though, saved me a ton of time and the client a lot of money for the moment. (The client later stipulated to all future franchisees that they had to buy only Macs, lol)

                • kergonathan hour ago
                  > Back in my day you to to download a couple GB worth of cygwin

                  You still can, and it still works exactly the same way.

                • iririririr13 minutes ago
                  what do you mean? that's still the only way to work as a human in windows. wsl1 almost replaced it, but obviously they scrapped it.

                  if you must use windows, it's because you will compile for windows. so you install MSYS, which is a linux distro-ish compiled native for windows. and do your work.

                  wsl2 (and this apple thing) is just a meme. if you're working in it, you're better of just installing Linux or ssh'ing to a server.

                • _blk5 hours ago
                  ... Now it's just called git bash
                  • michaelsbradley5 hours ago
                    Just install and use MSYS2, git bash is derived from it anyway, and a regular MSYS2 installation offers a lot more.
              • kevinminehartan hour ago
                It was soooo slow though. Practically unusable for anything i/o heavy.
                • dented4221 minutes ago
                  Those issues could have been fixed…
            • pjmlp3 hours ago
              [dead]
        • jayd166 hours ago
          Mac Subsystem for Linux 2
      • pseudosavantan hour ago
        Exactly what I thought. The Mac equivalent to WSL. Which is a great thing for Mac devs. Lots of stuff expects Linux these days, not POSIX. Mach isn’t Linux.
    • 6 hours ago
      undefined
  • qalmakka2 hours ago
    This is all fine and dandy, but where are the native Darwin Jails Apple? Still scared that people will filling whole rooms of Mac Minis if you allow them to have multiple macOS containers and not only up to two fat VMs per machine?
    • jorisw7 minutes ago
      To build the container project, you need:

      - Mac with Apple silicon

      - macOS 15 minimum, macOS 26 recommended

      - Xcode 26, set as the active developer directory

      https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/BUILDING.md

      • qalmakka6 minutes ago
        That's totally unrelated to what I wrote
    • adastra226 minutes ago
      sandbox profiles?
      • qalmakka2 minutes ago
        macOS sandboxing is deliberately limited just enough to prevent anyone from truly implement Darwin-on-Darwin containers. People have been discussing about this for a while, see https://github.com/apple/container/discussions/611

        In general I understand the rationale behind Apple's decision. They sell hardware, and there's real demand for macOS on servers to run build jobs and other Mac-only tools. Giving you the ability to run multiple containers on a single Mac would end up turning a 10 Mac Mini order into a 2 Mac Minis order for most people. Rest assured, even if it would be technically possible they'd find a way to cap it somehow via the EULA or whatever

  • golem142 hours ago
    I belong to a rare breed of very opportunistic hobby-developers that like to use MacOS but also like to use linux machines or BSDs (rpi etc) sometimes.

    I can create docker-images with docker compose, or use something like colima, which this seems to be close to (that should have some advantages over docker, although my hope of circumventing W^X page protection did not pan out).

    I was perplexed that the repository does not put these container machines in context. The seem to be close to colima? When should I use which option (docker, collima, container machines ?)

    Maybe others wonder too but are ashamed to ask. I have no shame ;)

    Thanks for any pointers

  • LaFolle23 minutes ago
    Python binary wheels now have to be built for aarch64 for them to work inside the container, unless they are built using the corresponding build system while installing. It is not common for python binary libs to publish arm64 binary wheels, as most often they target amd64.
  • pmontra20 minutes ago
    How is this different from Virtualbox or similar products with a shared folder with the host machine? I expected that existing virtualization tech for Macs already did that. Maybe the improvement is having nothing to configure.

    By the way, is it headless or can it run a full Linux desktop? Use case: buy a Mac, uninistall whatever can be uninstalled, run the Linux VM as primary desktop forgetting MacOS and without going through Asahi and the incomplete hardware support.

    • iririririr8 minutes ago
      it differs by lacking all the cool options that makes vmware and virtualbox good products, but apple users will praise it as a benefit

      "bind mounts? I'm better without it"

  • blahgeek6 hours ago
    OrbStack works really well for me. I wonder how it’s compared to this performance wise
    • kdrag0n6 hours ago
      (OrbStack dev here.) Instead of Virtualization.framework, we have a custom Rust virtualization stack with custom devices and protocols for things like filesystem sharing. It's a highly optimized vertically integrated stack specifically for running our Linux machines and containers.

      Our biggest perf/resource gain is dynamic memory, which reduces memory usage a lot by releasing unused memory back to macOS. Nothing else supports this, including Containerization.

      I gave Container Machines a try and it seems to be much closer to OCI containers with a default bind mount than OrbStack machines. It has fewer integrations and doesn't run systemd or any other normal init system, so it's hard to run services.

      • rswail25 minutes ago
        I changed over to Orbstack just for local builds and it is one of those apps that makes owning a Mac that much better.

        This post reminded me to buy a license, just done it, worth it for the time saved.

      • d3v1an73 hours ago
        just adding a 'hell yeah: orbstack is so good' to the thread. i mainly avoid containers where i can, but when containers need to happen, orbstack is 'just enough' for me. lovely and well considered ui, stable, performant. don't need much else. thank you for your work and care!
      • egernst6 hours ago
        Thanks for the info kdrag0n! Big fan of OrbStack; good call out on dynamic memory.

        If the guest image has /sbin/init, we use that.

        We'd recommend using a base image for the guest that includes systemd. ie: https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/docs/container-...

      • mescalito5 hours ago
        Super happy orbstack customer. Just curious on your statement:

        > I gave Container Machines a try and it seems to be much closer to OCI containers with a default bind mount than OrbStack machines. It has fewer integrations and doesn't run systemd or any other normal init system, so it's hard to run services.

        The linked md document says:

        > Real Linux services for testing. Run a database or whatever your stack needs as a system service — systemctl start postgresql works on images with systemd installed.

        Was that not the case when you used container machines?

        • kdrag0n5 hours ago
          That's my bad, I used the example alpine commands and the official alpine doesn't have init. It's supported if you build an image with systemd installed
      • CGamesPlay6 hours ago
        > Our biggest perf/resource gain is dynamic memory, which reduces memory usage a lot by releasing unused memory back to macOS. Nothing else supports this, including Containerization.

        Wow, missed this when reviewing OrbStack. I assumed that you just used Containerization and therefore would have the same limitation.

      • saltamimi6 hours ago
        I know this is off topic, but I do thank you for your Android work, the idea and elegance of fastboot.js and that SafetyNet workaround trick was truly really cool.
        • kdrag0n6 hours ago
          Ahh those were good times, glad you came across it :)
      • kxxx6 hours ago
        Apple says that `systemctl` is supported... hmm am I missing something?

        "Real Linux services for testing. Run a database or whatever your stack needs as a system service — systemctl start postgresql works on images with systemd installed."

        • kdrag0n6 hours ago
          Good catch, I tried the example alpine commands and there was no init system. Makes sense if it's based on OCI images
          • kxxx6 hours ago
            Just tested it on on an OCI image with systemd and it works well. I can see the appeal of OrbStack regarding memory reallocation and will stick with it in the time being :)
      • trueno5 hours ago
        just dropping in to say orbstack super owns and i use it every day. huge respect to rethinking this experience, for a minute there i thought docker was just going to be the only path. i dont think ive looked back for docker since. orbstack just feels right, and damn its so fast and good with resources, and the UI is just insanely straight forward. props!
      • TheTaytay5 hours ago
        We love OrbStack too! Thank you for it,

        I wanted to make its VM/machine our default secure agent sandbox, but I couldn’t figure out how to isolate this VM from the host properly. This thread prompted me to find the issue though, and I saw this was recently implemented! https://github.com/orbstack/orbstack/issues/169

        • kdrag0n5 hours ago
          Yep! Still refining it but isolated machines now have fine-grained settings for filesystem mounts, network isolation, SSH agent forwarding, and CPU/memory/disk limits
      • jhancock6 hours ago
        I’ve been using podman on Mac. It’s been a nice fit as the container build files are identical to what I use on my fedora server. I have noticed my 2 virtual core 4 gb Linode vps runs apps faster in the same container as when run on my MacBook Air M2 16 gb. I expected some performance overhead but didn’t think it would be noticeable as it is. Overall happy with podman. How might OrbStack differ?
        • thatxliner6 hours ago
          Having used both, it feels like OrbStack "just works" more than Podman. The main example of this is Supabase.
      • bjt123452 hours ago
        Orbstack plays well with Pycharms BTW.
      • blackqueeriroh4 hours ago
        When are y’all gonna support sandboxing? Preferably Docker Sandboxes?
      • vsgherzi6 hours ago
        I love orbstack, is there any code I could read on the rust side? Seems very interesting
    • kiproping9 minutes ago
      Thank you for mentioning this, I have been suffering under the yoke of docker.
    • gempiran hour ago
      I just wish bind mounts would be more performant/native. I get that this is probably impossible, and probably also sucks on Linux, haven't tried.

      But like having containers that need file watchers like vite dev server, or frankenphp in watch mode will overload OrbStack real quick since It seems to fallback to polling instead of listening to fs events.

      So I'm stuck running vite dev servers and the like on the host.

    • emmelaich5 hours ago
      I'd like to see a comparison to https://tart.run/ as well.

      AFAICT it's pretty similar.

    • mpeg4 hours ago
      I like orbstack in theory, but I find it hard to justify a $96/yr license fee for something that has so many open source, free alternatives. As it is, I’d rather use podman or colima
      • Ghoelianan hour ago
        It's free for personal use, and for a company 96/year is absolutely nothing, I'd hope.
      • baqan hour ago
        The alternatives are all broken in some ways is the answer, including the official paid docker enterprise.

        Personally I’d rather the company provisioned me MacBook hardware with Linux. Unless Fable or some other ai ports asahi properly to modern hardware I expect to retire before this is possible, orbstack is the next best thing, available today.

    • kxxx6 hours ago
      I really like OrbStack and am also not sure why I'd use Container Machines over it, at the moment...
    • cpuguy835 hours ago
      Not a full docker env, I aimed this as doing builds though you can run dockerd as an option, https://github.com/cpuguy83/crucible uses the containerization framework to run either build kitd or dockerd and wire it up to docker/buildx cli (or whatever client tooling you want to use).

      The Containerization framework is a library that sits as a layer on top of the virtualization framework. So each container is its own VM.

      Machine is tooling above the containerization framework to run multiple things in a container in a vm.

    • jbverschoor2 hours ago
      Note that orbstack supports audio and usb pass through, which is super nice
  • WatchDog6 hours ago
    Do these containers share a common kernel? Or are they each ran in a separate VM?

    Edit: It's a VM per container. https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/docs/technical-...

  • tannhaeuser36 minutes ago
    Just to clarify, this requires Mac OS 26 Tahoe for "container" doesn't it? So those of us holding out on Sequoia who can't stand the broken glass UI or what's called and the other undesired features need to stick to Docker desktop.
  • shelled11 minutes ago
    I hope this brought us one step closer to being able to run our distros of choice very freely and easily on a Mac.
  • jaimehrubiks6 hours ago
    Will this be able to replace docker desktop an equivalents, removing the expensive Linux VM that runs alongside them?
    • binsquare2 hours ago
      Linux VMs on doesn't have to be expensive!
    • usernametaken296 hours ago
      My first thought as well, docker desktop overhead is pretty bad, would be awesome to see this land natively in DD. By my estimate this could happen, seeing as Docker has historically tried to improve performance but quickly had to accept platform limitations… would only be natural to settle DD over to containers
      • deathanatos6 hours ago
        Well, you can avoid the Docker Desktop tax by not running Docker Desktop. colima is a perfectly usable implementation of Docker for macOS, without the bloat of Docker Desktop.

        That said, colima still has the expensive VM that upthread is mentioning.

    • thejazzman6 hours ago
      It mostly removes the big shared background VM and replaces it with smaller, more isolated Apple-native VMs.

      I did an experiment migrating my Podman workload to Apple's container @ https://gist.github.com/jmonster/39e14585e107dbf990a90966c0f...

      TL;DR reduces ram/storage usage; minimizes it's existence

      • deathanatos6 hours ago
        How does that work, realistically?

        > Memory defaults to half of host memory

        That's the most expensive part of the whole transaction, b/c AFAIK, RAM is then dedicated to the VM. It can be swapped out, I suppose, but that's not great.

        • MBCook4 hours ago
          CGamesPlay said above its balloon memory so it won’t use all that memory by default, but it can’t release balloon memory yet.
      • nozzlegear5 hours ago
        Nice, thanks for this. My plan is to swap over to Apple's containers for local dev, and keep using podman quadlets in production.
    • lostlogin6 hours ago
      Others here mention it and I’m a new convert to Colima.

      The pain of working around Docker Desktop is bad.

    • trollbridge6 hours ago
      That sure would be nice. I seem to rm -rf ~/.colima every few days.
    • 6 hours ago
      undefined
  • k_bxan hour ago
    Most of my team's development happens on beefy desktop machine in incus containers per dev+project (so you run yourname-projname-dev). It has its own tailscale inside so you can open it like regular https website or give to another dev to check out – no need to deploy your branch somewhere, just run it. New dev onboard takes 10 minutes from zero to dev env with VSCode remote development.

    I would really love if apple could give inexpensive way to run amd64 containers for situations when dev wants to use their own hardware. We've used LIMA for now, was too much of a hussle. But if there's a more native experience – would give it another try.

  • rakel_rakel2 hours ago
    It's funny that the system config page (https://github.com/apple/container/blob/main/docs/container-...) lists pebibytes for RAM configurations... in this day and age where buying a 16GB stick for workstation would cause me to eat instant ramen for a couple of months because my dentist needs an LLM chatbot on their page to stay competitive!

    UX wise it looks kinda neat though!

  • noobcoder4 hours ago
    The costs are startup time and image compatibility: dockerhub images don't work as machine images because container machine expects systemd

    I am trying it on but its brekaing on homebrew 1.0.0. The formula puts plugins at opt/container/libexec/container-plugins/ and the apiserver looks in libexec/container/plugins/

    This can be solved through a symlink or smth

    • masklinn2 hours ago
      > dockerhub images don't work as machine images because container machine expects systemd

      Are you sure about that? A few comments above a commenter states that they don’t run inits at all (because they ran alpine), multiple people replied that it works fine if you give it an image with an init, and they acknowledged their error.

  • sdevonoes21 minutes ago
    Im running Multipass on M1 for full linux VMs. Are container machines better?
    • m1keil8 minutes ago
      Isn't multiphase is Ubuntu only?
  • katspaugh2 hours ago
    I've looked into replacing Lima with Apple Containers for https://runmachine.dev.

    However, unlike Lima, an Apple Container is not a full VM, so you cannot SSH to it, or forward SSH-agent signatures into a machine.

    So it's more of a devcontainer story, which is also a great use case. Nice to see Apple creating tooling around their VZ framework.

    Edit: referential clarity.

  • cromka2 hours ago
    So essentially both macOS and Windows now heavily support developing using Linux on them. They can't more openly admit that they are no match for Linux in that area.

    There's some clever advertising in it for Linux, if Linux was advertising.

    • plutokras13 minutes ago
      Enterprises would do anything to develop on Linux except using an actual Linux distro.
    • rahkiinan hour ago
      I’d argue they both admin that Linux servers are the target for a lot of applications to run on. Not to develop on.
  • 0xbadcafebee5 hours ago
    Anyone know why you would use this instead of QEMU+Lima+Colima+Docker/containerd? The latter works on multiple OSes, has a very large ecosystem of tools, images, documentation, and lets you replace pieces as needed
  • llimllib6 hours ago
    Is this new? I thought we had this already

    In my testing (iirc) filesystem performance was not good enough to be usable with node/rust dev where lots of small files get stat-ed

    update: what's new is the `container machine` subcommand. I went to test it out, but container failed to run at all for me: https://github.com/apple/container/issues/1681

    • kdrag0n6 hours ago
      Curious if you've tried OrbStack? There's always more work to do (test workloads appreciated!) but we've put a lot of effort into optimizing for small files and other common developer workloads in OrbStack's customized filesystem sharing protocol (not standard virtiofs).
    • dchestan hour ago
      Did you use their volumes for node_modules or a shared dir? I mounted the whole project directory (with node_modules) inside the container and it seems to work fine (MBA M1 8 GB RAM).
    • ahknight5 hours ago
      Podman is on macOS, FWIW. Uses the existing container framework to run the machine already. Root-full or not.
  • mkagenius4 hours ago
    Apple containers are great for providing a sandbox to your AI coding agents

    I have made it a MCP so that it's easily discoverable by all the coding agents

    https://github.com/instavm/coderunner

  • harrouet2 hours ago
    Why did they have to invent their own solution instead of just shipping docker or an equivalent clone ?
  • pjmlp3 hours ago
    With the BUILD and WWDC 2026 announcements, it is the Year of Linux Containers Desktop.

    Which for many folks is good enough for what they are doing, thus the status quo of desktop platforms will hardly change for current form factors.

  • osigurdson5 hours ago
    I'm surprised they cared enough to do this. I'd still rather use Linux but MacBook value is incredible.
    • marssaxman5 hours ago
      I'd always rather use Linux, but sometimes your employer gives you a MacBook. I might use this tool.
  • vachanmn1234 hours ago
    Could this allow us to use proton on mac maybe?
    • xd19363 hours ago
      This is hilarious. Next year, the PC gamers will be saying "The best Windows gaming experience is win32 on Linux on macOS Containers".
      • aurareturn3 hours ago
        The fastest (Geekbench 6) Windows laptop in the world is actually an M5 Max Macbook running Parallels running Windows.
      • kergonathan hour ago
        Wine works fine on macOS, there is no need for a Linux layer.
      • Gigachad3 hours ago
        I mean at this point literally anything works better than Windows.
        • pjmlp3 hours ago
          Except game development, hence Proton.
          • asimovDev2 hours ago
            it always gets a sad chuckle out of me to hear that some native linux ports run worse than the windows version under proton. i think valve games are like that (l4d2 for example) and recently I think Hollow Knight: Silksong was like that
            • Gigachad2 hours ago
              I think at this point native linux ports are somewhat a thing of the past. The problem was that the ports were usually contracted out to a 3rd party and rarely updated or cared for that much. There was also the issue that they often relied on dynamically linked libraries provided by the distro rather than static linked libraries bundled with the game. So stuff that did work would break on distro updates.

              The proton model has the benefit that bugs on linux can be fixed by Valve and the Wine community. While bugs in an official linux port can only be fixed by the game publisher which rarely happened. There also seems to be virtually no downsides to running a Windows game in Proton. These days I don't even bother checking the Wine DB or proton rating because unless the game is deliberately blocking linux via anti cheat, it will just work.

              • pjmlp2 hours ago
                The irony that without Windows there are no Linux games, eventually Linux folks will learn about OS/2 history in regards to Windows compatibility features.

                Linux will stay forever a headless operating system great for embedded, server rooms and containers.

                We have all limited time on Earth, and eventually Valve won't be around as it used to be, might even be acquired, sold, whatever, then what in regards to Linux gaming?

                • Gigachadan hour ago
                  Wine existed before Proton, Valve made it better but the project doesn't rely on Valve. Currently Linux is the best gaming experience. Zero bloat or nagware, everything just works. It's just ironic Wine/Proton ended up being the best platform for gaming on Linux. I don't think anyone expected it to run so well with virtually no performance impact.

                  Now with the Fex project, it might end up that running Windows games on linux on a modern ARM processor could be the best way to game going forward, especially for mobile platforms like the SteamDeck.

                  • pjmlpan hour ago
                    The best gaming experience are Switch, PlayStation, XBox, iOS, Android, the very definition of everything just works, and no kernel drivers to worry about.
                    • gf00040 minutes ago
                      You just listed concrete hardware (with the exception of Android). That's a category error, of course a fixed hardware with specialized software will have less inconsistencies.
                      • pjmlp18 minutes ago
                        You would be happier if I listed the respective OSes instead?
    • bel8an hour ago
      I don't think so. This is a VM, closer to WSL2.

      Proton is based on Wine which translates Windows instructions to Linux.

      Besides there's already Wine for mac.

      But I would love to be wrong here.

  • cogman105 hours ago
    Is there any reason why macOS doesn't try a WSL1 style approach? I get why that didn't fully work out for windows, but it seems like macOS being another *nix would make a lot of what was hard for windows, easy for mac. It seems like it should be possible to run most linux applications natively on macOS with few additional new APIs.

    BSD actually has this already.

    • qalmakka2 hours ago
      FreeBSD has Linuxlator because there is a lot of binary only software that was never and never will be ported to BSD, so it's necessary for them in order to avoid bleeding users away. Conversely, macOS has basically all software ported natively to it, so when you _need_ a Linux environment 95% of the time it isn't because you need $XYZ that only run Linux, but because you need a proper Linux environment with systemd, cgroups etc. Implementing that stuff on top of XNU would probably be extremely expensive and it would arguably defeat the point of having their own kernel in the first place.
    • twoodfin5 hours ago
      What would be the advantages over a VM infrastructure Apple needs anyway and that has a much simpler, more stable “ABI” compared to the Linux kernel?
      • cogman105 hours ago
        Potentially faster application execution along much lower memory requirements. In the case of docker, even a possibility of shared library loading further reducing runtime costs (For example, containers based on the same base image could load glibc into memory only once).

        There's also simply the possibility of using linux software directly in macos without doing OS dependent changes to the software.

        • MBCook4 hours ago
          Yeah. But in exchange it’s a lot of work to keep up with. For GUI stuff you’re now having to have some sort of Wayland layer/driver.

          Running VMs is really really easy and low maintenance demand on Apple. And it’s guaranteed compatibility.

          Wasn’t compatibility what really sunk WSL1?

          • skissane3 hours ago
            > Wasn’t compatibility what really sunk WSL1?

            Yes, but a big part of the problem with WSL1 was the size of the conceptual gap between POSIX and Windows NT that WSL1 had to bridge. An “MSL1” would likely have fewer problems because the gap between macOS and Linux is smaller, given they are both POSIX

            The other thing Apple could potentially do, is add Linux-compatible APIs to macOS. IBM wanted to support Kubernetes on their z/OS mainframe operating system, so they implemented on it a clone of Linux namespace APIs, e.g. unshare. Then we could have macOS nodes in a K8S cluster-which might actually be useful for some people, e.g. if you have a Jenkins CI farm, the Linux nodes can run on K8S, but currently macOS nodes (which you need if you are targeting iOS or macOS) can’t, they have to be bare metal or VMs.

            More Linux-macOS source compatibility would also benefit macOS by making it less work to port software to it from Linux

            • qalmakka2 hours ago
              Linux and the BSDs take APIs one from the other all of the time. The issue with having a Linux ABI is that you don't need just the few APIs you're missing, you need to implement the WHOLE Linux API and it has to be _perfect_, otherwise stuff will randomly break. I loved the original WSL, I had to use it for a time period back in the day when I was stuck on a Windows PC, but it can't be denied it was full of random bugs
  • numbsafari6 hours ago
    Wouldn’t it be nice if services like Codespaces or Coder or Gitlab would allow you to target running on their hosted/integrated platform, or let you launch that same container completely locally? Sometimes I wanna take my “remote” dev environment off-line but still benefit from the integrated UX.
    • RossBencina6 hours ago
      This exists. It's called devcontainers and there is a cli for managing it locally.

      https://github.com/devcontainers/ https://containers.dev/

    • CGamesPlay6 hours ago
      If you can express that operation in Terraform, then Coder would let you do that. First problems I can think of are connectivity from the Coder provisioner to your local machine (Tailscale? Local?), and migrating disk images if you want to actually switch a workspace between environments (local provisioner could do this, but no matter what it’ll be slow and janky).
    • jayd166 hours ago
      Maybe I don't understand but why doesn't Gitlabs self hosted setup work?
  • Joyfield5 hours ago
    We have WSL at home.
  • rickstanley5 hours ago
    I was wondering if it's possible to have the container volume change to, say, an external drive. I currently use QMEU with qcow2 images to achieve this, works well enough.
  • m1325 hours ago
    Every time I see Apple flaunting Linux containers I can hardly consider it as anything but admitting defeat. It could easily be Darwin, if they still had the capacity.
    • groundzeros20155 hours ago
      Just change 30 years of internet history
      • al_borland4 hours ago
        For what it's worth, the first web server was a NeXTcube, and NeXTSTEP was the foundation of macOS.
    • TheDong5 hours ago
      Apple set itself up for defeat in the server and developer marketplace as soon as they decided macOS was proprietary code.

      Why would any serious developer use closed-source code they can't debug and modify? Especially for a production server?

      It's the same reason no serious developers or hackers use macOS, like part of the point of being a developer is being able to dig into the code at any layer and debug and fix things.

      • bschwindHN2 hours ago
        > It's the same reason no serious developers or hackers use macOS

        I know I'm basically taking the bait, but I guess I've not been "seriously" developing stuff for the past decade or two, which is news to me!

      • m1324 hours ago
        OpenDarwin was a thing at one point, with mailing lists and other infrastructure hosted by Apple.

        That being said, my point isn't that Apple should absolutely focus on making a server OS again. It just saddens me how far behind macOS has fallen as they stopped caring about the fundamentals; back in the day, it would be Linux trailing behind macOS. Nowadays, you can't even have multiple routing tables on the latter, the firewall code was probably last updated in Snow Leopard, and what Apple happily shows off on WWDC is a wrapper around Linux. Something functionally equal can be cobbled up together by anyone sufficiently experienced in minutes, using just Bash, OpenSSH, and QEMU.

        I really wish macOS would let me have a similar level of control over applications as Linux with namespaces, without me having to do all the heavy lifting.

      • pjmlp3 hours ago
        Apparently game, desktop and app devs aren't serious.
      • vehemenz4 hours ago
        No offense, but serious developers don’t think this way at all.
        • bel83 hours ago
          For server side, which I believe is the context here, Linux and open source are king.

          Even Microsoft gave up on Windows and just runs Linux most things except niche cases. Heck, even SQL Server which is expensive piece of machinery got ported to Linux and that's the default target now in their docs.

          With that said, one can't deny Apple's success on the b2c side of things so it feels wrong to call their strategy a failure.

          • pjmlpan hour ago
            Except the cloud isn't open source, the ones that matter to developers that is.

            Which is why so many projects get burned with their license choices.

            • gf00037 minutes ago
              I don't see how this comment is relevant to parent's point. Sure, cloud is proprietary. But it is Linux for the vast majority.
              • pjmlp21 minutes ago
                Which is an Pyrrhic victory, when Linus and other founders are long gone, most of this generation actually, what will subsist are proprietary forks, just like what happened with UNIX System V.
    • tw045 hours ago
      What is the alternative? They gave up the server market a decade ago and before that they barely actually supported it.

      If they were to support darwin containers, what would be the point? Literally nobody would build to it, Linux won.

      • riffic5 hours ago
        > Literally nobody would build to it

        because nobody does ci/cd against macOS or iOS apps right?

        • tw044 hours ago
          And what is the revenue stream tied to that ci/cd pipeline they aren’t capturing today? Apple would sell less hardware in order to…?

          There aren’t any app developers avoiding the Apple ecosystem because there aren’t Darwin containers. They don’t sell server hardware and by all accounts have no intention of ever reentering that space. So they’d spend a bunch of developer cycles to reduce their own revenue stream with no apparent upside beyond “goodwill” which they’ve never been overly concerned about.

          • m1324 hours ago
            Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the same logic, you could also say this whole containerization framework is of no use either.

            If they're investing resources into it regardless, they might at least try making something that Docker for macOS and co. haven't solved the same exact way already. Something that, due to their almost unhealthy obsession with "system integrity", only they can realistically make. Like native containers.

            • tw044 hours ago
              Supporting the containerization framework lets them sell more laptops to Linux devs that may have otherwise bought a Dell or hp or insert brand to run Linux natively on or windows with WSL.
            • MBCook4 hours ago
              Containers are REALLY REALLY popular. This is a a great value add for developers on Mac who need to deal with Linux containers.

              Which is a ton of ‘em.

        • pjmlpan hour ago
          They already support this scenario with XCode Cloud, it is only a market for those that don't want to pay Apple for it.
    • ahknight5 hours ago
      [dead]
  • jzer0cool3 hours ago
    In the intro it mentions automatically mapping user and home dir. So host files accessible the container. Any settings to control this?
  • a1o6 hours ago
    With colima I can run AMD64 (x86) Linux containers in my Arm64 too. I think this is strictly for Arm64 Linux VMs, or is there some way to run x86 with this too?
    • cpach2 hours ago
      What’s the performance when you do that?
    • frizlab6 hours ago
      Rosetta should be supported
      • whycombinetor3 hours ago
        Not for long!
        • commandersaki2 hours ago
          Very unlikely to lose support for Rosetta for Linux. Maybe just Rosetta 2 for mac apps.
  • beemboyan hour ago
    Is this going to be good for AOSP builds on Macs?
  • ChrisArchitect6 hours ago
    WWDC presentation video:

    Discover container machines

    https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2026/389/

  • ShinyLeftPadan hour ago
    Can Podman support these eventually?
  • konaraddi2 hours ago
    Sounds like toolbox or distrobox for Mac!
  • CSDude3 hours ago
    I know its not going to be there but wish we had Windows as well.
    • Cadwhisker2 hours ago
      Install Windows 11 ARM under the macOS "UTM" App. This lets you run x86 Windows programs on Apple silicon.
  • commandersaki6 hours ago
    Would be cool if you can redirect USB devices to the VM.
    • kdrag0n6 hours ago
      We just released this in OrbStack :) https://docs.orbstack.dev/features/usb

      Blog post soon

      • blackqueeriroh4 hours ago
        What happened to Orbstack for like 9 months until earlier this year? Suddenly everything went silent for a bit and I was pretty concerned. Glad y’all are back!!!!
      • calebm5 hours ago
        Thank you for sharing this - I looked into OrbStack a few months ago, and this was the reason I didn't use it (as my primary purpose was to have an external wifi adapter for wifi pwnage).
      • commandersaki5 hours ago
        Yeah I find this useful for redirecting storage/sdcard*, so you can format linux filesystems or use other tools.

        * need a usb sdcard reader for macbook pro cause the builtin is not usb)

        • kdrag0n4 hours ago
          We're working on block device passthrough for the builtin SD reader.
    • rgovostes4 hours ago
      I've successfully tinkered with USB/IP with Apple containers, but it does require loading a custom kernel (which they make pretty easy, thankfully). On the host side, macOS also doesn't make it easy to unload a driver that attaches automatically.
    • egernst6 hours ago
      Agreed! There's some good improvements around Accessory Access in virtualization framework this year also - checkout: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2026/224/?time=2...
      • commandersaki5 hours ago
        I wonder if the custom virtio can be used to support attaching the built-in sdcard readers on macs which aren't exposed as usb.
  • sachinjoseph6 hours ago
    WSL-like implementation on macOS?
  • jbverschoor2 hours ago
    Just curious, Apple seems to copy orbstack.. haven’t they made an offer to acquire you guys?
  • zekrioca2 hours ago
    "LXC" for macOS?
  • itsneulook42 hours ago
    Yeah but sitting in the tweak circles just to gather personal data about people to make them lose their minds is no bueno. Otipolfueriborsklineypoo
  • namegulf6 hours ago
    Would be nice if they also support Intel based macs, what prevents?
    • MBCook6 hours ago
      Apple won’t support them with MacOS 27, and it seems they announced this tool as part of this year’s WWDC.

      Basically: they’ve moved on.

    • danhon6 hours ago
      Allocation of a finite amount of engineering resources.
      • joshuat6 hours ago
        And a legitimate business interest to further incentivize the adoption of Apple Silicon devices. Same with Rosetta deprecation after macOS 27.
        • JumpCrisscross6 hours ago
          > a legitimate business interest to further incentivize the adoption of Apple Silicon devices

          Apple has never been about supporting legacy platforms with new features. And with over a quarter of revenue and two fifths of Apple's gross profits coming from services, one could argue the incentives run either way.

        • crote4 hours ago
          Sure, but to what extent?

          Enterprise ARM servers are still a niche product, and so are the ARM developer machines running Linux or Windows. Until this significantly changes, Apple will have to provide good x86 interop - or lose the developer market entirely.

          Forcing people towards Apple silicon is of course an attractive approach when targeting the large portion of the market using their MacBooks as Facebook browsing machines, but (especially with the new MacBook Neo) what's going to happen when a large portion of the market for high-end MBPs disappears because it turned from the default no-brainer into a liability?

          • macintux4 hours ago
            > Until this significantly changes, Apple will have to provide good x86 interop - or lose the developer market entirely.

            I'm very, very skeptical of this analysis. Certainly "entirely" is hyperbole.

          • solarkraftan hour ago
            That’s a joke right? I’ve been developing software deployed on x86 servers on ARM Macs ever since they were released.
        • ForOldHack5 hours ago
          Rosetta 2. Rosetta was for Intel to emulate 68k, now if you could get Rosetta 2 to run under Rosetta, then you could run 68k, on an ARM, and if you could get the apple ][ emulator...
          • weikju4 hours ago
            Rosetta 1 was for emulating PPC not 68k
    • teaearlgraycold6 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • imglorp5 hours ago
        I'll defend, not cringe for everyone.

        Daily driver is a 6yo, 32Mb mbp and it might not scream like an M5 or have the miraculous power draw of an M5, it gets my job done.

        One nice thing is x86 containers run natively: I run most of my $work landscape which is 40 or 50 k8s pods on top of Kind, which is itself a plain container. That mirrors my prod. That plus slack, zoom, ff with scores of tabs, etc. all while building rust and playing music.

        • MBCook4 hours ago
          That is a far more useful reply than the GP comment. If they had stated something similar I don’t think they would’ve been downvoted.
          • teaearlgraycold3 hours ago
            Poe's Law and all that, but I was trolling/shitposting.
      • ncr1005 hours ago
        More power to ya!
      • Brian_K_White6 hours ago
        cringe is cringe
  • tonymet2 hours ago
    What FS mounts the Mac drives into the Linux container ?
  • phplovesong2 hours ago
    It was unclear to me, is this a native replacement for docker? I like docker (on mac) but its quite the resource hog.

    I usually run like a db, redis, maybe something like rabbitmq/zeromq and have a app that uses these services (makefile/docker-compose).

    I would love to switch if this in fact is a lightweight replacement.

    • masklinn36 minutes ago
      On the one hand yes, on the other hand there are already multiple lighter alternatives to docker on mac.
  • t1234s5 hours ago
    Is this similar to what cygwin was for windows? Could this be an alternative to homebrew?
  • gigatexal4 hours ago
    I saw the video on this this is distrobox basically for Mac. It’s very cool. Seamless with your local files and the container. I’m very keen to try it.
  • michaelsbradley5 hours ago
    Can macOS be run as a container machine on macOS?
    • blackqueeriroh4 hours ago
      Yes
      • MBCook4 hours ago
        Yep. For a few years. And they keep enhancing it too.

        It’s the only legal way to do so, due to the software license on MacOS.

  • riffic6 hours ago
    darwin containers when?
  • 6 hours ago
    undefined
  • m4637 hours ago
    looks like apple wrote a native docker in swift

    you can now run linux containers on your mac

    ... but it could be better.

    what about (totally contrived):

      FROM apple/macos:10.11.6
    
      RUN xcodebuild -project myapp.xcodeproj -scheme MyScheme -configuration Release
    • webXL6 hours ago
      Nice, but expect to page through a few pages of ToS during the build
      • m4636 hours ago
        lol

          ENV XCODE_FRONTEND=unattended
          ENV XCODE_LICENSES=accept,firstborn,applepay,appleid=sjobs@me.com
    • trollbridge6 hours ago
      Close - but it would be more like this:

        services:
          macos:
            image: dockurr/macos
            container_name: macos
            environment:
              VERSION: "15"
      
      (And indecently slow.)
    • windowliker6 hours ago
      It would be wonderful if this ran on older versions of macOS, but according to the README they only support 26.
      • m4634 hours ago
        you do not understand... Not run on, run IN :)

        I'm saying the older version of macos could build/run INSIDE the container

        just like on a ubuntu 24.04 system you can do:

          FROM ubuntu:16.04
        
        or

          docker run ubuntu:16.04 
        
        and though I haven't tried it, I believe docker can do arm in x86 using an emulator (like rosetta)
        • MBCook4 hours ago
          You can already run older versions of macOS inside a VM on macOS.

          So it seems like in theory that should be doable if someone just made the container images right?

    • 6 hours ago
      undefined
    • jadar6 hours ago
      i wish!
  • lzwjava2 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • sourcegrift6 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • al_borland5 hours ago
      macOS only needs to support the hardware it ships on, so of course Linux would have wider hardware support, but that doesn’t really matter in context. The bigger question is what hardware to people actually want? I see most people drool over Apple hardware while not finding any suitable equivalent for the PC that they can install Linux on.

      Framework is trying to close that gap with their new release, but we’ll have to see how it is once people get their hands on it. I think it also comes at a price premium. There is always the Thinkpad route, but Lenovo burned just about every bridge with me a decade ago with things like Superfish. Where is the premium Linux laptop OEM that people can trust? Last I heard System76 was just rebranding Clevo hardware. What are people using? Dell? HP?

    • hollerith6 hours ago
      Sadly, Linux is much much less secure.
      • pixelatedindex6 hours ago
        This claim is so absurd that I need some sources.
        • armadyl6 hours ago
          The person you replied to is right, the "security" of Linux might as well be nonexistent compared to macOS and especially iOS/Android. Even the developers of Secureblue (https://secureblue.dev/) state that despite their hardening and mitigations Linux still lags far behind macOS (and possibly Windows) security-wise. The only Linux derivative that has proper security is Android, and even better GrapheneOS.

          https://privsec.dev/posts/linux/linux-insecurities/

          https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html

          I also commented here on Linux phones, the same can apply to Linux as a desktop OS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46997397

          Also on top of that Linux/Windows laptops also lack the hardware-backed security that Macs and to an extent some Chromebooks have.

        • JumpCrisscross6 hours ago
          Linux is easier to misconfigure. Macs resists being misconfigured insecurely. At their tightest, I'd say neither is fundamentally more insecure than the other. (The exception would be M5-based Macs, which come with MIE. Though that isn't a macOS vs Linux thing per se.)
          • armadyl6 hours ago
            This is incorrect macOS is fundamentally more secure than desktop Linux operating systems and it isn't particularly close.

            No amount of Linux hardening will get a system even close to an M-chip Mac. Software insecurities aside, desktop Linux OS systems have almost none of the hardware-backed security benefits that Macs do.

            • TimTheTinker6 hours ago
              At some point, lack of security becomes a feature. A fully secure, locked-down, T2 attested macOS is able to be controlled not just by Apple, but by increasingly evil governments, with no recourse available to users.
              • armadyl5 hours ago
                Conversely, a Linux system with no verified boot can be easily tampered with without the user detecting it by people lower than the government such as casual hackers. So in a world where your government is going crazy, you're opting for an operating system that can be penetrated with relative ease (e.g. with persistent root malware) both by a non-government hacker on top of a state backed one.
                • JumpCrisscross5 hours ago
                  I'd also guess it's much harder to securely source components for a Linux build in the way Apple is able to.
                  • armadyl4 hours ago
                    It's not really about supply chain security it's about the hardware itself. PC manufacturers in general just can't keep up since they don't have full control/integration over the hardware stack like Apple does. Also CPU, secure element etc security is limited but Qualcomm is catching up pretty quickly I believe if they aren't there already. We won't talk about Intel and AMD. But that's beyond my knowledge so I can't say anything too specific that's just what I have from general knowledge I'm sure someone will jump in with additional info if needed.

                    I don't think Apple is particularly any more secure against the US government than Intel is with supply chain vulnerabilities but I have nothing to back that up with aside from vibes.

        • dvhh4 hours ago
          Security by obscurity worked quite well
  • xiaodai4 hours ago
    so basically dockers
  • jwlake5 hours ago
    haven't we had hypervisor.framework for like years now?
  • itsneulook42 hours ago
    that thepolfus and the Otis and the bors and the alschweid and pretty much anyone in old the the gs gangstalk or just getting people info to sit in the same room as them to try and makr them go crazy deserve to brave hart quartered
    • khazhoux2 hours ago
      try unplugging your keyboard and then plugging it back in
  • Barbing6 hours ago
    I found it hard to believe I didn’t have a simple way of staying safe by installing an arbitrary application in a sandbox on macOS. (Restoring using Time Machine doesn’t count! :) )

    This is a step in the right direction but requires any given developer’s buy-in first, right?