[myPhilTaylor]

You failed at thinking that orbstack is nothing but a UI-layer to docker.

It's certainly not that. In fact you don't even need to have the app running in order to use docker!

Ive lost the link now but somewhere @Danny explains the different layers (like networking, file sharing, domains etc) that he had to write from scratch that are not part of Docker (the engine)

For example. One of the longest bugs in Docker for Mac has been file-sharing/bind mounts... Orbstack performance over Docker for Mac in this respect is incredible. Also Docker for Mac (still) doesnt have ipv6 whereas Orbstack enables this out of the box seamlessly.

Thinking of Orbstack as "just another UI for docker" is completely wrong.

[smoldesu]

All of that sounds very impressive, I won't deny the effort that goes into making that from scratch. My point is that most of this also exists elsewhere, in non-Docker alternative implementations (like Lima + Podman).

For most businesses looking at something like this, they will either want a comprehensive support contract or comprehensive ownership. Orbstack will struggle here, especially considering how it has basically nothing to do with the deployed product at most companies. You're not going to run production on Orbstack, so the value of it is pretty dubious relative to even a bad product like Docker Desktop.

I swear I'm not trying to be too harsh here, I used Docker Desktop on Mac at my last job too. My team was researching alternatives to it, and given what we were looking at I don't think Orbstack would be compelling. The FOSS alternatives worked just fine for testing and development.