XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com   
      
   On Nov 20, 2025 at 6:15:44 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote   
   <10foeg0$3bld1$3@dont-email.me>:   
      
   > On 21 Nov 2025 00:51:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Nov 20, 2025 at 4:19:00 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote   
   >> <10fo7l3$39kk9$7@dont-email.me>:   
   >>   
   >>> On 20 Nov 2025 20:42:14 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That’s not really what’s going on. Apple isn’t hyping a “Linux   
   >>>> feature they get for free.” They’re using macOS’s virtualization   
   >>>> stack to run full Linux instances, with some clever memory sharing   
   >>>> so multiple guests don’t store identical kernel pages.   
   >>>   
   >>> That’s what Linux “containers” do -- like I said.   
   >>   
   >> Containers are not full VMs.   
   >   
   > That *is* the point: full VMs each have their own kernel, containers   
   > share a kernel.   
      
   Right. That is what I am saying... and the VM is on the macOS side.   
      
   >  Apple is making a big deal about some kind of   
   > shared-kernel approach. I.e. not full VMs.   
      
   Shared kernel... the macOS kernel is different than the Linux one.   
   >   
   >>> They let you run multiple entirely independent userlands under the   
   >>> same kernel. Linux already gives you that for free: all that   
   >>> “clever memory sharing” among “multiple guests” is something Linux   
   >>> is doing, not macOS!   
   >>   
   >> Independent userland is not the same as a VM.   
   >   
   > Is Apple using the term “VM” to refer to something that is really a   
   > “container”? Are you being taken in by that?   
      
   No. Apple is using a VM.   
   >   
   >>>> And they’re not “making a big deal” out of it.   
   >>>   
   >>> More kind of embarrassed about having to embrace Linux, then?   
   >>   
   >> Do you understand what open source is? LOL! Heck, do you understand   
   >> how much of macOS is open source? Even Darwin is open source.   
   >   
   > It’s not “Darwin” any more, it’s “XNU”.   
      
   Darwin and XNU are both a part of macOS (XNU is the at the heart of Darwin).   
      
   > Which stands for “XNU’s Not   
   > Unix”. Did you know that?   
      
   It is not a secret. But also not a sign it is not a real UNIX.   
      
   >  That the OS you keep going on about how it’s   
   > really and officially “Unix”, is built on a kernel that explicitly   
   > claims it isn’t “Unix”?   
      
   I saw where someone else pointed you to the Wikipedia page on that -- clearly   
   you did not read it. :)   
      
       -----   
       By keeping the BSD kernel into the third part of XNU,[7] XNU   
       became UNIX-based when macOS achieved UNIX certification   
       under the Single UNIX Specification (SUS) by The Open   
       Group.[8] Despite this, Apple retained the original 'XNU'   
       name, which stands for 'X is Not Unix,' a relic from its   
       NeXTSTEP origins before macOS was UNIX-certified. This has   
       led to confusion, as the name suggests that XNU is separate   
       from UNIX, even though macOS, as a whole, is officially   
       recognized as a UNIX operating system.[1]   
       -----   
      
      
   --   
   It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)