undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmxey7mo ago0 comments

Apple Silicon is ARM64 which is supported by Linux and Docker.

0 comments

15 comments · 5 top-level

watermelon07mo ago· 4 in thread

But Docker images don't necessarily have ARM64 support. If you are exclusively targeting x64 servers, it rarely makes sense to support both ARM64 and AMD64 platforms for development environment/tests, especially if the product/app is non-trivial.

aj_hackman7mo ago

Every port I've done to a new hardware or software platform has shaken loose at least a handful of bugs or assumptions that were well worth ironing out. And in the case of a port to Apple Silicon, you get a very fast development environment at the end of it. This library also helped with 90% of the work:

https://github.com/DLTcollab/sse2neon

tyingq7mo ago

Or, if you just want to create multi-arch images for your project, on your Mac...so that your non-Mac customers can use them.

Gigachad7mo ago

I guess now it makes sense. Got 3 years to turn on ARM builds.

coldtea7mo ago

No, it still doesn't make sense.

And it looks like Rosetta 2 for containers will continue to be supported past macOS 28 just fine. It's Rosetta 2 for Mac apps that's being phased out, and not even all of that (they'll keep it for games that don't need macOs frameworks to be kept around in Intel format).

wmf7mo ago· 4 in thread

Yeah but many people are using x86-64 Docker images because they deploy on x86-64. Maybe ARM clouds will be more common by that time.

wmwragg7mo ago

Yep, this is another reason I've needed the use of x86-64 images, as although they should be technically the same when rebuilt for ARM, they aren't always, so using the same architecture image which is run in production, will sometimes catch edge case bugs the ARM version doesn't. Admittedly it's not common, but I have had it happen. Obviously there is also the argument that the x86-64 image is being translated, so isn't the same as production anyway, but I've found that to have far less bugs than the different architecture

MangoToupe7mo ago

> Obviously there is also the argument that the x86-64 image is being translated, so isn't the same as production anyway

I've never seen this make a practical difference. I'm sure you can spot differences if you look for them (particularly at the hardware interface level) but qemu has done this for decades and so has apple.

mxeyOP7mo ago

Many container images are multi-arch, although probably not ones that are built in-house.

avhception7mo ago

We built our in-house images multi-arch precisely for this reason!

BurnTheBoss7mo ago· 2 in thread

That's not really the point though right? It means that pulling and using containers that are destined for x86 will require also building arm64 versions. Good news is buildx has the ability to build arm64 on x86, bad news is people will need to double up their build steps, or move to arm in production.

Snelius7mo ago

W/o rossetta i can't build x86_64 images anymore. Today i can setup OrbStack amd64 linux and build native amd64 images on my mac to put on my servers.

coldtea7mo ago

What they talk about is Rosetta's macOS frameworks compiled for Intel being kept around (which macOS Intel apps use, like if you run some old <xxx>.app that's not available for Apple Silicon).

The low-level Rosetta as a translation layer (which is what containers use) will be kept, and they will even keep it for Intel games, as they say in the OP.

coldtea7mo ago

Parent doesn't want to merely run ARM64 Linux/Docker images. They want to run Intel images. Lots of reasons for that, from upstream Docker images not available to ARM64, to specific corporate setups you want to replicate as close as possible, or who aren't portable to ARM64 without huge effort.

wmwragg7mo ago

I'm aware, I use ARM images all the time, I was trying to indicate that the usual refrain that the developers have had years to migrate their software to apple silicon, doesn't really apply to docker images. It's only the increase in use of ARM elsewhere (possibly driven by the great performance of macs running apple silicon) which has driven any migration of docker images to have ARM versions

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

15 comments · 5 top-level

watermelon07mo ago· 4 in thread

aj_hackman7mo ago

https://github.com/DLTcollab/sse2neon

tyingq7mo ago

Or, if you just want to create multi-arch images for your project, on your Mac...so that your non-Mac customers can use them.

Gigachad7mo ago

I guess now it makes sense. Got 3 years to turn on ARM builds.

coldtea7mo ago

No, it still doesn't make sense.

wmf7mo ago· 4 in thread

Yeah but many people are using x86-64 Docker images because they deploy on x86-64. Maybe ARM clouds will be more common by that time.

wmwragg7mo ago

MangoToupe7mo ago

> Obviously there is also the argument that the x86-64 image is being translated, so isn't the same as production anyway

mxeyOP7mo ago

Many container images are multi-arch, although probably not ones that are built in-house.

avhception7mo ago

We built our in-house images multi-arch precisely for this reason!

BurnTheBoss7mo ago· 2 in thread

Snelius7mo ago

W/o rossetta i can't build x86_64 images anymore. Today i can setup OrbStack amd64 linux and build native amd64 images on my mac to put on my servers.

coldtea7mo ago

What they talk about is Rosetta's macOS frameworks compiled for Intel being kept around (which macOS Intel apps use, like if you run some old <xxx>.app that's not available for Apple Silicon).

The low-level Rosetta as a translation layer (which is what containers use) will be kept, and they will even keep it for Intel games, as they say in the OP.

coldtea7mo ago

wmwragg7mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse