Apple has had a native hypervisor for some time now. This is probably a baked in clone of something like https://mac.getutm.app/ which provides the stuff on top of the hypervisor.
1. Creating and configuring a virtual machine:
hv_vm_create(HV_VM_DEFAULT);
void* memory = mmap(...);
hv_vm_map(memory, guest_physical_address, size, HV_MEMORY_READ | HV_MEMORY_WRITE | HV_MEMORY_EXEC);
hv_vcpu_create(&vcpu, HV_VCPU_DEFAULT);
hv_vcpu_write_register(vcpu, HV_X86_RIP, 0x1000); // Set instruction pointer
hv_vcpu_write_register(vcpu, HV_X86_RSP, 0x8000); // Stack pointer
hv_vcpu_run(vcpu);
hv_vcpu_exit_reason_t reason;
hv_vcpu_read_register(vcpu, HV_X86_EXIT_REASON, &reason);Apple’s stack gives you low-level access to ARM virtualization, and from there Apple has high-level convenience frameworks on top. OrbStack implements all of the high-level code themselves.
Native Linux (and Docker) support would be something like WSL1, where Windows kernel implemented Linux syscalls.
I think it is the Unix side that decided to burry their heads into sand. We got Linux. It is free (of charge or licensing). It supported files, basic drivers and sockets. It got commercial support for servers. It was all Silicon Valley needed for startups. Anything else is a cost. So nobody cared. Most of the open source microkernel research slowly died after Linux. There is still some with L4 family.
Now we are overengineering our stacks to get closer to microkernel capabilities that Linux lacks using containers. I don't want to say it is ripe for disruption becuse it is hard and again nobody cares (except some network and security equipment but that's a tiny fraction).
You say this, but then proceed to state that it had a very good design back then informed by research, and still is today. Doesn't that qualify? :-)
NT brought a HAL, proper multi-user ACLs, subsystems in user mode (that alone is amazing, even though they sadly never really gained momentum), preemptive multitasking. And then there's NTFS, with journaling, alternate streams, and shadow copies, and heaps more. A lot of it was very much ahead of UNIX at the time.
> nobody else cares about core OS design anymore.
Agree with you on that one.
I meant that NT was a product that matched the state of the art OS design of its time (90s). It was the Unix world that decided to be behind in 80s forever.
NT was ahead not because it is breaking ground and bringing in new design aspects of 2020s to wider audiences but Unix world constantly decides to be hardcore conservative and backwards in OS design. They just accept that a PDP11 simulator is all you need.
It is similar to how NASA got stuck with 70s/80s design of Shuttle. There was research for newer launch systems but nobody made good engineering applications of them.
9front is to Unix was NT it's for VMS.
XNU is modular, with its BSD servers on top of Mach. I don’t see this as being a strong advantage of NT.
It's possible that Apple has implemented a similar hypervisor here.
That's their phrasing, which suggests to me that it's just a virtualization system. Linux container images generally contain the kernel.
No, containers differ from VMs precisely in requiring dependency on the host kernel.
Thst's how docker works on WSL2, run it on top of a virtualised linux kernal. WSL2 is pretty tightly integrated with windows itself, stil a linux vm though. It seems kinda weird for apple to reinvent the wheel for that kind of thing for containers.
Can't edit my posts mobile but realized that's, what's the word, not useful... But yeah, sharing the kernal between containers but otherwise makes them isolated allegedly allows them to have VMesque security without the overhead of seperate VMs for each image. There's a lot more to it, but you get the idea.