I didn't downvote, but I'd imagine people don't agree with his criticism of stability because it conflicts with VirtualBox. VirtualBox has to invasively modify your system configuration in order to accomplish virtualization. On the other hand, xhyve is using an OS X sanctioned virtualization technique (hypervisor.framework) that works within sandboxed apps. This is the route going forward that Apple advocates for virtualization, not the method that VirtualBox uses.

> people don't agree with his criticism of stability because it conflicts with VirtualBox

Folks are welcome to disagree, but Docker has a history of shipping software which uses a 3rd party feature which breaks, to which they frequently responded "not our code, talk to someone else": btrfs instability, corrupted volumes due to conflicting devmapper libraries, iptables dropping routes, upgrades orphaning containers, etc.

I realize they don't have control over all of the variables, but constantly releasing unstable 3rd party features was not the greatest behavior, and the "Not My Problem" response to issues is aggravating.

All that said, since they're working against their own fork of xhyve, it is a sign that these kinds of issues will be addressed by the Docker team this time, which is a good thing.

This is exactly correct. We're really enjoying working with the Hypervisor.framework, VMnet.framework, and all the various hooks Apple has exposed for apps like Docker for Mac. There are some bugs in the short-term, but Apple has been steadily addressing our Radar bugs and we have workarounds in place in the Application for the most annoying ones.

I don't think that makes it makes his question any less valid. Yosemite has been out 18 months, true, but hypervisor.framework has had a lot of work done - even Docker acknowledges that they've been filing several Radar bugs on it even to this day.

Yes, any new virtualization projects should strongly consider using it, but that doesn't mean any issues with projects with have a massive investment in tooling and ecosystem should be considered deprecated and dead just because of this.

I'd bet it has to do with criticizing the Docker developers for a bug which is actually in one of two independent projects, and doing so in reaction to an announcement of something explicitly billed as a way to avoid that problem.

I doubt it would be getting downvotes if the comment was just a statement of fact without the somewhat random slam against the Docker developers.