I just finished a side project where I was using a managed postgres instances. I originally was going to use gcp because that's where my application's hosted. However, after starting a postgres instances and it idling for a couple weeks I saw that it was going to cost me $30 a month... just to sit there. I ended up going with a different vendor for managed SQL. After playing with that for some time, I was just thinking of hosting my db on my own hardware because I still don't like the price point.

I can appreciate having flat rate plans because you know exactly what you're going to pay. Especially for something like side projects.

I might seriously consider this for my projects.

I've been using FF as my default browser on desktop and mobile for at least 4 years. I've had zero issues. In fact, if I need to use their dev tools, I find them superior to chrome. I don't understand the shade Mozilla gets thrown at them.

What term do competent people use to explain things they don't understand?

They simply refrain from explaining things they don't understand.

“I don’t understand.”

This sounds so similar to my new place of employment, it has to be the same.

so an abstration on top of docker?

It uses the Docker CLI to build container images out of the Nix shells it creates, if you ask it to export one to a Docker image for you. Otherwise it just uses Nix locally, no virtualization.

I wonder if it takes this approach because there's some issue with using Nixpkgs' dockerTools on macOS— those tools let you create Docker/OCI images without even having Docker installed.

https://nix.dev/tutorials/building-and-running-docker-images... asserts that you'd need a remote builder or cross-compiling. So it seems possible (unless maybe there are still enough cross-compile issues?)

Can cross builds hit the main binary caches or is that awaiting Hydra support for content-addressed derivations? Are there big caches for cross-compiled packages?

I'm guessing awaiting based on how much rebuilding I had to do yesterday.

docker is not virtualization either

1. Yes it is— there are many kinds of virtualization other than machine virtualization. Containers are a form of operating system virtualization.

2. Docker on non-Linux also requires machine virtualization; the `docker` CLI connects to a `dockerd` daemon running on a virtual machine.

The question I posed earlier is motivated by understanding this and knowing that on macOS, the binaries that devbox runs on your local machine are completely different (of a different architecture, even) than the binaries that devbox will pack into a Docker image. Since it uses Nix to build them, it either needs to run Nix in a virtual Linux guest (which it does using the guest that Docker for Mac sets up) or have its Mac-bound Nix build Linux binaries.

Using `docker buildx` obviates the need to set up devbox's own Linux VM to target as a remote builder, or, alternatively, cross compile the required Nix packages. But it comes at the cost of adding a dependency on Docker even though devbox doesn't use the Docker runtime for its shells

No, it just creates images compatible with docker.

I have had friends receive items like candles already used or paint brushes already used.

I've been duped into buying travel size bottles of mouthwash, toothpaste, soap, etc because the seller prices them at or around the same as full sized items.

I guess that's on me for not paying attention to the weight though...

It'd be a real shame if they didn't call it The Amazon