[rdtsc]

> light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems.

Not if lighweight easily-manage containers can run Windows. Not just windows but any non-matching-with-host-kernel OS-es so nobody is eating VMWare's lunch yet.

[hhsnopek]

I think after the baby boomers have left the picture in business, windows will slowly die out. Developers today are using OSX and Linux. Don't quote me, but traditional schools are the only ones using windows. My college does, and I honestly think its a learning point for all developers to know Linux over windows because of usage around the world. Tech companies are dropping windows for the opposing systems because of speed, reliability, and the current trend in design. With this happening all development, or at least what I'm seeing in the web, is mainly done on OSX or Linux. Therefore it make sense that lightweight containers will eventually eat VMWares lunch.

[emmelaich]

Speaking of OSX, what is there equivalent?

I've used Solaris Zones and LXC containers, but the closest thing on OSX is sandbox. But that's not very close as far as I can tell.

[lucian1900]

OS X has no containerisation equivalent. The closest thing is the venerable chroot, but the behaviour is not comparable.

Perhaps a Docker chroot backend could be built though, for easier development on OS X.

[turnip1979]

I was just thinking what a pain it is to have to use VMs/ssh in order to get access to containers from my Mac OS machine. It made be (semi-seriously) consider getting a Linux machine as my next laptop. I'm still a bit skeptical but it is a start to think about it.

[hhsnopek]

Just dual boot Arch on your current machine, it's pretty easy and you get to keep using the Mac hardware! :D