Devvm.dev: One VM for every project

Re:Devvm.dev: One VM for every project by rvz on Friday November 06, 2026 @01:40PM (#50396448)

There are yet thousands of these so-called "sandbox" projects that exists. This one sounds rather really wasteful on resources?

Bubblewrap would just be a better alternative for this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Devvm.dev: One VM for every project by kakugawa on Friday November 06, 2026 @01:52PM (#50396637)

bwrap has a lot of sharp edges that can bite you, if you're not aware of them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Devvm.dev: One VM for every project by jFriedensreich on Friday November 06, 2026 @01:53PM (#50396655)

bubblewrap is linux only and offers a fraction of isolation of a microvm

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Devvm.dev: One VM for every project by aniceperson on Friday November 06, 2026 @02:42PM (#50397353)

right chain of tought, but systemd is the only to truly leverage linux namespaces capabilities, allowing private networks, other rootfs, etc

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Devvm.dev: One VM for every project by yjftsjthsd-h on Friday November 06, 2026 @03:38PM (#50398153)

systemd is not the only thing using linux namespaces. For example, the suggested bubblewrap uses namespaces to allow isolated networks (--unshare-net) and changing rootfs (--bind /mnt/foo /)

[ Parent | on HN ]