6 ms·

> How static are we talking here? Enough for the executables to run everywhere. So I'm happy for system libraries to be dynamically linked. > But do you even

> How static are we talking here? Enough for the executables to run everywhere. So I'm happy for system libraries to be dynamically linked. > But do you even want to distribute Windows binaries? That's what I'm imagining. A windows binary that starts a Linux VM in which the container runs. > Does this include automagically mounting filesystems? Yep, inside of the Linux kernel. Here's what PID 1 looks like: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/blob/non_linux/src/init.zig https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/blob/non_linux/src/init.z...

Cu3PO42 3y ago
Hey, I appreciate the reply! > A windows binary that starts a Linux VM in which the container runs. I'm afraid my wording was somewhat ambiguous here. I meant to ask "do you aim to wrap Windows apps in a single Windows binary", but I suppose you answered my question anyway. You want to distribute Linux applications to Windows users. Running on Windows/macOS was also the context in which I meant to ask about filesystem mounts. I understand this is not something that's implemented yet, but I'm wondering about your goals. Things obviously get much trickier than they are on Linux. On Windows I'd probably include a Plan9 server for file sharing. The much larger hurdle I see for Windows support is that I don't think you can setup virtualization without Admin privileges in the general case. If Hyper-V is not already present and enabled you'll need to install some hypervisor. Even QEMU needs Hyper-V for proper virtualization.
- NilsIRL 3y ago
  > Running on Windows/macOS was also the context in which I meant to ask about filesystem mounts. That's not an issue because the mounts are within the Linux VM. At least as long as you're not trying to implement volumes. > I understand this is not something that's implemented yet, but I'm wondering about your goals. Make a better alternative for all the projects that suggest using `docker run` in their READMEs. Something that's easy to setup (re-use existing Dockerfiles) and something that doesn't depend on pre-existing setup from the user (which docker does). > The much larger hurdle I see for Windows support is that I don't think you can setup virtualization without Admin privileges in the general case. If Hyper-V is not already present and enabled you'll need to install some hypervisor. Even QEMU needs Hyper-V for proper virtualization. That's good to know. I didn't know that. I guess it will need to use emulation in some cases then.

Cu3PO42 3y ago

Hey, I appreciate the reply! > A windows binary that starts a Linux VM in which the container runs. I'm afraid my wording was somewhat ambiguous here. I meant to ask "do you aim to wrap Windows apps in a single Windows binary", but I suppose you answered my question anyway. You want to distribute Linux applications to Windows users. Running on Windows/macOS was also the context in which I meant to ask about filesystem mounts. I understand this is not something that's implemented yet, but I'm wondering about your goals. Things obviously get much trickier than they are on Linux. On Windows I'd probably include a Plan9 server for file sharing. The much larger hurdle I see for Windows support is that I don't think you can setup virtualization without Admin privileges in the general case. If Hyper-V is not already present and enabled you'll need to install some hypervisor. Even QEMU needs Hyper-V for proper virtualization.

NilsIRL 3y ago
> Running on Windows/macOS was also the context in which I meant to ask about filesystem mounts. That's not an issue because the mounts are within the Linux VM. At least as long as you're not trying to implement volumes. > I understand this is not something that's implemented yet, but I'm wondering about your goals. Make a better alternative for all the projects that suggest using `docker run` in their READMEs. Something that's easy to setup (re-use existing Dockerfiles) and something that doesn't depend on pre-existing setup from the user (which docker does). > The much larger hurdle I see for Windows support is that I don't think you can setup virtualization without Admin privileges in the general case. If Hyper-V is not already present and enabled you'll need to install some hypervisor. Even QEMU needs Hyper-V for proper virtualization. That's good to know. I didn't know that. I guess it will need to use emulation in some cases then.