Same here, but I never understood how BSD jails or Solaris zones are better over normal hardware virtualization which is used in Qubes OS. In addition, you get a great UX in the latter.
* lower runtime overhead
* quicker deployment time
* smaller image foot print
Plus most of the advantages of VMs can still be applied.
However it does massively depend on individual use cases. Qubes aims to be ultra secure and containers in Linux weren’t up to that task at the time (the situation has since improved massively).
- quicker deployment time
- smaller image foot print
Firecracker beg to differ. I think you can do virtualisation and have all three you listed.
Also I’m not really in the mood to engage in a dumb flame war. I’m just answering the question as to why some people favour containers for some workflows. If firecracker works for you then keep at it.
I tend to look at it the other way though: given containerisation is so easy these days, what are the compelling reasons to run virtual machines.
Neither is a wrong answer though.
The kind of domains where this is an issue isn’t what you’re average engineer would be concerned with.
Where VMs do help the average engineer is they have more secure defaults. It’s pretty easy to accidentally run containers insecurely on Linux (FreeBSD jails are a better story though)
Tells me you don't know the difference between HW-Virtualisation and OS-Virtualisation.
> On your phone, a desktop a server?
Phone doesn't support hardware virtualization of course. On my laptop I'm using Qubes OS.
Every CPU "supports" hardware virtualization.
>software virtualization?
That's a "VM" like JVM, we talk about OS-Virtualisation.