Huh. I suppose it’s a good thing I never came around to migrating our team from docker desktop to Orbstack, even though it seems like they pioneered a lot of the Apple implementation perks…
It's the other way around, the Apple code is FOSS, Apache 2 to be specific.
Presumably it's not as good right now but where it ends up depends entirely on Apple's motivation. When they are determined they can build very good things.
If Apple is committed to containers on MacOS, it makes sense to use their implementation over a third party. They know their own platform more intimately, can push for required kernel changes internally if necessary, and will provide this feature free of charge since it's in their own interest to do so—as apparent from the fact the source is published on GitHub, under Apache.
As opposed to that, there's OrbStack, a venture-backed closed source application thriving off of user licenses, developed by a small team. As empathetic as I am with them, I know where I bet my money on in this race.
They could replace their underlying implementations with this, and for most users, they wouldn't notice the difference, other than any performance gains.
My guess is that Orbstack might switch to using this, and it'll just be a more competitive space with better open source options popping up.
People still want the nice UI/UX, and this is just a Swift package.
Orbstack also does kubernetes etc
Huh. I suppose it’s a good thing I never came around to migrating our team from docker desktop to Orbstack, even though it seems like they pioneered a lot of the Apple implementation perks…
I still haven't heard why anyone would prefer the new Apple-proprietary thing vs Orbstack. I would not hold my breath on it being better.
Wild because "Apple proprietary" is on GitHub and Orbstack is closed source but go off I guess.
1 reply →
It's the other way around, the Apple code is FOSS, Apache 2 to be specific.
Presumably it's not as good right now but where it ends up depends entirely on Apple's motivation. When they are determined they can build very good things.
If Apple is committed to containers on MacOS, it makes sense to use their implementation over a third party. They know their own platform more intimately, can push for required kernel changes internally if necessary, and will provide this feature free of charge since it's in their own interest to do so—as apparent from the fact the source is published on GitHub, under Apache.
As opposed to that, there's OrbStack, a venture-backed closed source application thriving off of user licenses, developed by a small team. As empathetic as I am with them, I know where I bet my money on in this race.
1 reply →
Here here .. i prefer these new built-in tools. Who cares it is proprietary open source. It works with standard OCI containers. Goodbye Docker.app
They could replace their underlying implementations with this, and for most users, they wouldn't notice the difference, other than any performance gains.