So they didn't actually test Ubuntu at all. They tested a third party produced kernel hack used to get support for their hardware. They then falsely assume that this is somehow representative of running Docker in...what? Production? Or for development purposes? They seem to have neglected to think about their use case. You'd think that the hardware they used for this test would be representative of a developer use case - but then why does performance matter?
If you consider container technology of the form that Docker uses, the kernel used is paramount for performance. Host OS userspace doesn't matter since it isn't active - the container userspace is provided by the container!
So not using an official Ubuntu kernel means that they didn't actually test anything provided by Ubuntu at all in practice. They've just tested whatever Linux kernel Docker Desktop uses inside its VMs on Windows and macOS against this Linux kernel hack running natively.
Their abstract also says:
> Upon analyzing the distribution of Docker Desktop for Windows and Docker Desktop for macOS, it was discovered that running the Docker environment on these requires a lightweight virtual machine that emulates the Linux system.
This is inherently known to anyone who can remotely claim to understand container technology. If this was a revelation to them, then this would explain why they think they tested Ubuntu when they didn't, and why they were unable to spot this flaw.
Disclosure: I'm biased in favour of Ubuntu. But I think the flaws I've described above stand for themselves.
> This barrier could be overcome with the help of the T2-Ubuntu [32] distribution, designed to be installed on Apple computers with T2-chipped.
That reference leads to https://github.com/t2linux/T2-Debian-and-Ubuntu-Kernel?tab=r..., which provides instructions on how to use a non-Ubuntu kernel to work around a hardware support issue on the particular hardware they used.
So they didn't actually test Ubuntu at all. They tested a third party produced kernel hack used to get support for their hardware. They then falsely assume that this is somehow representative of running Docker in...what? Production? Or for development purposes? They seem to have neglected to think about their use case. You'd think that the hardware they used for this test would be representative of a developer use case - but then why does performance matter?
If you consider container technology of the form that Docker uses, the kernel used is paramount for performance. Host OS userspace doesn't matter since it isn't active - the container userspace is provided by the container!
So not using an official Ubuntu kernel means that they didn't actually test anything provided by Ubuntu at all in practice. They've just tested whatever Linux kernel Docker Desktop uses inside its VMs on Windows and macOS against this Linux kernel hack running natively.
Their abstract also says:
> Upon analyzing the distribution of Docker Desktop for Windows and Docker Desktop for macOS, it was discovered that running the Docker environment on these requires a lightweight virtual machine that emulates the Linux system.
This is inherently known to anyone who can remotely claim to understand container technology. If this was a revelation to them, then this would explain why they think they tested Ubuntu when they didn't, and why they were unable to spot this flaw.
Disclosure: I'm biased in favour of Ubuntu. But I think the flaws I've described above stand for themselves.