Wonder how Docker feels about this. I'd assume a decent amount of Docker for Desktop is on Mac...
Well it makes developing Docker Desktop infinitely easier for them, since they no longer need to start their own Linux VM under the hood. I think the software is "sticky" enough that people will still prefer to use Docker Desktop for the familiar CLI and UX, Docker Compose, and all the Docker-specific quirks that make migrating to a different container runtime basically impossible.
Docker Desktop on Windows uses WSL to provide the Docker daemon, doesn't it? So Docker Desktop has a history of leaning into OS offerings for virtualizing Linux like this where they can.
Docker desktop on macos uses the Apple virtualization framework to run a Linux VM these days.
I never used docker desktop and am struggling to understand what you are supposed to be doing with a gui in a docker/container context.
GUI lets you look at logs quickly, there is buttons to click quickly open http://localhost:<port>, stop and start containers, get shell in container and bunch of other stuff that people developing or testing against containers need locally.
I am surprised a developer would not have chosen to redirect the port at run time already and would not be running the containers in the foreground in the first place.
So many developers don't learn docker. I'm Ops type person, outside FAANG, most devs are just flinging code at screen to close JIRA tickets, get the build to go green and collect a paycheck to go home. Docker, that's for us Ops people who have build that rickety pipeline that somehow manages to get your code into a container and into the Kubernetes cluster.
Dropbox copypasta goes here
I mean maybe but if you run your containers not via a GUI you get most of that for free or at worst with a docker logs or docker exec command.
Do people learn docker not via the CLI?
They do, then they realize that it's not the core component of their jobs (unless they're ops) and it is easier to press a "stop" button to kill containers, at least in their use case.
I did. Well, I did until I found lazydocker, a TUI that handles the majority of the day-to-day stuff that I need to do that isn't already written into tasks in my justfile: https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazydocker
I for one have been using docker on Linux for years and have to use a Mac at work, and I'm totally baffled by the fact i need to install docker desktop to use the CLI and don't get why you'd need or want the GUI.
And like I'm not all anti-GUI, it's just that docker is one of those things I've never even imagined using a GUI for
You don’t have to install docker desktop. The cli can be installed via homebrew. (Co)Lima, podman, or others, can be used to create a VM running the docker engine.
It’s just that Docker Desktop makes it easy and also provides other integrations like file system sharing etc.
I mean, it's nice to have a GUI when running multiple containers on Docker, or Kubernetes, but I've never used Docker Desktop on my work Mac either.
For Kubernetes, something like K9s [1] or Headlamp [2] works fine. I remember seeing something similar for Docker but I can't remember the name.
I think there's a difference in that dropbox was targeted at regular users, not just developers.
I think docker desktop and apple's containerization are both targeted firmly at developers only.
It's like programming, sure it's possible to write code in microsoft office or xcode or vscode, but all programmers I've met opt for ed or vi.
Developers are users as well, I don't get the macho thing that developers always have to do it the hard way.
I don't get the thing that by default present cli usage as hard way compared to gui.
This can sometimes be true, but on many ocasion be the opposite: For instance I've been spending 3 hours watching an IT support techician seemingly clicking randomly everywhere to debug why the corporate sec/antivirus on my laptop is saying my configuration is not compliant. The provided gui and accompanied interface to check events is strikingly uninformative, slow and inefficient and having a simple cli tool with a -status or -report flag that would give you the reason it complain would be much easier to everyone involved.
You're assuming that the CLI tool would be any better, which in many cases are just as bad when coming from the same company.
For me, Docker Desktop is simply an easy way to launch the Docker daemon and inspect some created images and their corresponding logs. Other than that, the cli suffices.
We had to remove Docker Desktop at my job (I think they started asking for money?) and moved to Lima/Colima. If this project means one less program to configure to get my docker containers running then I'm all for it.
Docker desktop for commercial use requires a license and they don't release binaries for Mac other than desktop. Seems like their one route to monetization. I use docker for literally only one build that doesn't work on native macOS so i love the idea of switching to a simple standalone CLI
I use Rancher Desktop plus the FOSS docker CLI from Homebrew. Works well, and has no licensing issues.
The problem (as far as I can tell) is that for Windows and MacOS you can't install the docker daemon etc without installing Desktop.
I have a Mac for work and containers are a pain. I've tried Podman, UTM, colima, Docker Desktop etc and it all boils down to the same thing - run a linux VM and have the command line utils cooperate with the VM to run the containers.
It comes down to which solution has the least friction and irritations and Docker might still win there.
My current setup is UTM running a debian VM which I share my source directory with and ssh into to run docker. This is simpler for my brain to understand because the linux VM isn't a hidden component I forget to manage.
But it's not obvious how to mount the shared directory and I'm constantly running into networking problems - currently I cannot connect as myself and must sudo ssh for it to work. A reboot (of the Mac) used to fix it, but no longer does. I've given up trying to fix it and just sudo.
Imo, the GUI isn't really the most important part of things like Docker Desktop.
The nice part is that they (a) set up the Linux VM that runs the Docker daemon for you and (b) handle the socket forwarding magic that lets you communicate with it "directly" by running the Docker client on the host OS. This is likewise true for Podman Desktop, Rancher Desktop, etc.
The GUI is icing on the cake, imo.
Very few use the GUI for things other than configuring Docker engine settings like memory, etc.
Unless this provides an extremely compatible Docker socket implementation, this is the answer. When Docker changed the licensing for Docker Desktop, my previous employer made it harder to get permission. However, there were a few tools that were in common usage, and once you mentioned that you used them, you got your permission.
Some progress has been made to create a non-Docker implementation that integrates with all those random tools that expect to be able to yeet bytes into or out of the Docker socket, but I still hit blockers the last time I tried.
This doesn't compete with Docker for Desktop, as more low-level than that.
Docker for Desktop sits on-top of container/virtualization software (Hypervisor.framework and QEMU on Mac, WSL on Windows, containerd on Linux). So there's a good chance that future versions of Docker for Desktop will use this library, but they don't really compete with each other.
Probably about the same way they feel about podman.
I guess it'll depend on whether or not this starts shipping by default with newacOS installs.
If it doesn't, then it's still a toss-up whether or not user chooses docker/podman/this...etc.
If it ends up shipping by default and is largely compatible with the same command line flags and socket API... Then docker has a problem.
For what it's worth, I prefer podman but even on Linux where the differentiators should be close to zero, I still find certain things that only docker does.
Podman is fairly niche. This is an Apple product that Apple developer circles will push hard.
Alternatives to Docker Desktop aren't niche at all since Docker started charging money.
My org's management wasn't taking the issue seriously, but once the subscription cost reached one FTE's salary, they started listening to people who had already switched to Podman, Rancher or (Co)Lima.
I agree, Apple has a lot of weight. Podman, however, also has a fair bit of heft behind it (IBM via Redhat).
I'll not deny that it's a bit niche, but not so much so that it's completely unknown.
I apologize if this sounds like a hot take, but "Apple developer circles," as in, people who use XCode at all and care about any part of Apple's toolchain[0], is a very small number of people compared to "All developers who happen to code on Macs." In my experience at least, the typical developer who uses macOS codes in VSCode on JS, Python, etc., groans when some file association accidentally launches XCode, and would likely prefer to use normal Docker like the do on their Linux servers, rather than proprietary Darwin weirdness.
"Apple developer circles" to me means the few mostly indies who build non-electron Mac apps and non-ReactNative ios apps, but those developers mostly are writing client code and don't even touch servers.
All this said, my above "gut feelings" don't explain why Apple would have bothered spending their time making this when Orbstack, Docker, etc. already meet the needs of the developers on Mac who actually need and use containers.
[0]: besides the "Command line tools" that allow compilation to work, of course.
> All this said, my above "gut feelings" don't explain why Apple would have bothered spending their time making this when Orbstack, Docker, etc. already meet the needs of the developers on Mac who actually need and use containers.
Before Orbstack, running Docker on Macs was a total pain - the official desktop app is so awful, I doubt anyone at Docker is actually using it. Nevertheless, it was still too useful to let it pass. It was time either Docker or Apple stepped up, but they are both 10 years late to this party. Orbstack fixed the problem.
It would be interesting to see the reaction from Danny Lee, he's hanging out on HN sometimes. I hope this framework ends up being a building block, rather than outright competition.
Podman is the easy go-to for companies that don't like how Docker Desktop requires a license.
I'm sure Apple will try to push their own version of Docker but I'm not sure if they'll be able to win over any Docker Desktop businesses unless their tool also works on other operating systems.
On Windows it is Rancher Desktop that tends to be used, especially since podman only of late started making an easy GUI offering.
Sadly all of them are Electron based.
Most of my coworkers on Windows use none of these desktop applications, there's very little value in their features if you're already using WSL2 and the docker integration of your favorite IDE.
You're missing the fact that "docker desktop" actually provides the docker daemon as well as a GUI. There are alternatives for both Mac and Windows, but I'd wager that many people use "docker desktop" just for the ability to run docker containers from the cli.
Windows and macOS are specifically not the same here.
WSL2 provides everything you need to install the docker daemon and CLI, and the VS Code extension gives you a pretty decent GUI, there's no need for anything else really.
Well, it depends if people have a background as Windows developers, or UNIX refugees on Windows.
Docker Desktop is closed source proprietary software and this is free software, so this is a win (for us, at least).
Also the second they started charging podman dev picked up and that has gotten real good.