* hypervisor-framework handles the hypervisor bits, like creating virtual machines, virtualising hardware resources, basically a C API on top of Apple's hypervisor
* virtualization-framework is a higher-level API, meant to make it easy to run a full-blown VM with an OS and hardware integration, without having to reinvent the integration with lower-level primitives that hypervisor-framework provides
* containerization-framework uses virtualization-framework to run Linux containers on macOS in microVMs.
By analogy to not mix them up, it's a bit like KVM > QEMU > containerd.
Hope this helps!
Deleted Comment
edit: my bad that's the price for 256GB RAM.
Wouldn't this introduce additional latency among other issues?
I think way too much tooling assumes 1:1 pairings between services and repos (_especially_ CI work). In huge orgs Git/whatever VCS you're using would have problems with everything in one repo, but I do think that there's loads of value in having everything in one spot even if it's all deployed more or less independently.
But so many settings and workflows couple repos together so it's hard to even have a frontend and backend in the same place if both teams manage those differently. So you end up having to mess around with N repos and can't send the one cross-cutting pull request very easily.
I would very much like to see improvements on this front, where one repo could still be split up on the forge side (or the CI side) in interesting ways, so review friction and local dev work friction can go down.
(shorter: github and friends should let me point to a folder and say that this is a different thing, without me having to interact with git submodules. I think this is easier than it used to be _but_)
We want to help people in the EU, but with laws like replaceable batteries, it's going to push us further and further away from being able to do that.
Our product is designed to be refurbished, but not user-replaceable.
At the same time, how many products do people give up on because of battery life, and is this a non-issue with future battery chemistries?
Do people replace their phones because the battery isn't good anymore, or is it more likely they've broken the screen, cameras, etc to the point where it doesn't make sense to replace those anymore? Or they just want the newest thing?