Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • One reason I think a distinction is made is that native Docker-in-Docker can be a real pain, but Docker in a Firecracker microVM "just works".
    by sudb
  • Dynamic memory hot-plugging is still not as efficient. So if you don't want strict isolation between containers or individual sandboxes around each one of them, avoid VMs to achieve the highest density per box.
    by jeswin
  • Is all of docker one “micro” VM though? Or does each container get a clean, fresh one?
    by cr125rider
  • Docker *Desktop*, not Docker Engine. Most uses of Docker, at least until Kubernetes shifted to containerd, were the latter. The reality is that most running production containers today share a kernel.
    by otterley
  • I was just exploring the new docker sandbox and saw that they could retain all your data in/out of the sandbox for 30 days. I wash my hand of docker, use with care. Data is gold and lots of companies are now going to be giving their "free" products as a sort of trojan horse to steal your data.
    by segmondy
  • > What if I told you that Docker Desktop has always used microVMs?

    Then I would say your title is wildly misleading.

    by yjftsjthsd-h
  • Its bending history to call what before were Linux Vms inside Mac or Windows to have containers to that is a real MicroVM.

    And the current Sandboxes dont offer the same security model - See Docker Sandboxes 0.42.0 security update: CVE-2026-77179 and CVE-2026-79994

    https://docs.docker.com/security/security-announcements/

    by Betelbuddy
  • Article title is a bit click-baity. The article is only talking about Docker Desktop on Mac or Windows. Docker Linux have not been using microVMs for a decade.
    by unsnap_biceps

Explore Birbla archives