zlacker

>>makebo+(OP)
Thanks for sharing!

I'm the creator of microsandbox. If there is anything you need to know about the project, let me know.

This project is meant to make creating microvms from your machine as easy as using Docker containers.

Ask me anything.

>>appcyp+Y6
i'm on a mid-level laptop, at times with slow or expensive internet, running ubuntu. i want to be able to run nominally-isolated "copies" of my laptop at near-native speed

1. each one should have it's own network config, eg so i can use wireguard or a vpn

2. gui pass-through to the host, eg wayland, for trusted tools, eg firefox, zoom or citrix

3. needs to be lightweight. eg gnome-boxes is dead simple to setup and run and it works, but the resource usage was noticeably higher than native

4. optional - more security is better (ie, i might run semi-untrusted software in one of them, eg from a github repo or npm), but i'm not expecting miracles and accept that escape is possible

5. optional - sharing disk with the host via COW would be nice, so i'd only need to install the env-specific packages, not the full OS

i'm currently working on a podman solution, and i believe that it will work (but rebuilding seems to hammer the network - i'm hoping i can tweak the layers to reduce this). does microsandbox offer any advantages for this use case ?

>>nqzero+7E
> 1. each one should have it's own network config, eg so i can use wireguard or a vpn

This is possible right now but the networking is not where I want it to be yet. It uses libkrun's default TSI impl; performant and simplifies setup but can be inflexible. I plan to implement an alternative user-space networking stack soon.

> 2. gui pass-through to the host, eg wayland, for trusted tools, eg firefox, zoom or citrix

We don't have GUI passthrough. VNC?

> 3. needs to be lightweight. eg gnome-boxes is dead simple to setup and run and it works, but the resource usage was noticeably higher than native

It is lightweight in the sense that it is not a full vm

> 4. optional - more security is better (ie, i might run semi-untrusted software in one of them, eg from a github repo or npm), but i'm not expecting miracles and accept that escape is possible

The security guarantees are similar to what typical VMs support. It is hardware-virtualized so I would say you should be fine.

> 5. optional - sharing disk with the host via COW would be nice, so i'd only need to install the env-specific packages, not the full OS

Yeah. It uses virtio-fs and has overlayfs on top of that for COW.