KVM Desktop Setup Ideas
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But there is in no way the general expectation that a Type 1 hypervisor is and should also be capable of being a daily driver.
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
People need desktop virtualization all of the time. And in the modern market, there is essentially no reason to ever look at the only good Type 2, VirtualBox, because it is not nearly as good as Hyper-V or KVM. It's not as fast, or not as safe, and certainly not as easy.
The only reason anyone still considers Type 2 is because some people want Windows Home, and there is no Type 1 option.
I can see for Gamers who also need to do some VMs they may not want the Hyper-V overhead and would aim for type 2.... I hae no idea how much overhead Hyper-V actually introduces though.
I thought that at one point, but it is essentially zero. Gaming is fine with it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
Because there are two thought processes to be discussed, you're imaging that there is only 1.
The First: I need to be able to setup and operate VMs from a Type 1 Hypervisor that can be managed remotely
The later: I need a daily driver that I can setup and use to operate VMs for my workYou're implying that first option does not only exist, but only exist if you say you also need to use your Type 1 hypervisor on your hardware as a daily driver.
That is clearly not the case.
They are separate conversations.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
Because there are two thought processes to be discussed, you're imaging that there is only 1.
The First: I need to be able to setup and operate VMs from a Type 1 Hypervisor that can be managed remotely
that's not part of this discussion, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Finally.
That wasn't with me agreeing with you. I just left of the other half of the sentence.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
You're implying that first option does not only exist, but only exist if you say you also need to use your Type 1 hypervisor on your hardware as a daily driver.
No, no one ever implied that. Absolutely no one. Ever.
You are thinking of something completely different.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But there is in no way the general expectation that a Type 1 hypervisor is and should also be capable of being a daily driver.
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
People need desktop virtualization all of the time. And in the modern market, there is essentially no reason to ever look at the only good Type 2, VirtualBox, because it is not nearly as good as Hyper-V or KVM. It's not as fast, or not as safe, and certainly not as easy.
The only reason anyone still considers Type 2 is because some people want Windows Home, and there is no Type 1 option.
I can see for Gamers who also need to do some VMs they may not want the Hyper-V overhead and would aim for type 2.... I hae no idea how much overhead Hyper-V actually introduces though.
I thought that at one point, but it is essentially zero. Gaming is fine with it.
I think they do native GPU passthrough behind the scenes. So the biggest bottleneck is pretty much non-existent.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
Because there are two thought processes to be discussed, you're imaging that there is only 1.
The First: I need to be able to setup and operate VMs from a Type 1 Hypervisor that can be managed remotely
that's not part of this discussion, though.
Yes the hell it is. It has to be to make a determination of if you should be using a Type 1 or Type 2 and if you settle on Type 1 it changes the list of available options!
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
The later: I need a daily driver that I can setup and use to operate VMs for my work
Correct, this is one of the two general cases that exist, and the only one addressed here in any form.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
Because there are two thought processes to be discussed, you're imaging that there is only 1.
The First: I need to be able to setup and operate VMs from a Type 1 Hypervisor that can be managed remotely
that's not part of this discussion, though.
Yes the hell it is. It has to be to make a determination of if you should be using a Type 1 or Type 2 and if you settle on Type 1 it changes the list of available options!
Nope, because Type 2 isn't relevant here. Why are you thinking about it at all?
-
Is type 2 possible? Sure. Would it make sense? Obviously not. So why mention something so silly?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
Because there are two thought processes to be discussed, you're imaging that there is only 1.
The First: I need to be able to setup and operate VMs from a Type 1 Hypervisor that can be managed remotely
that's not part of this discussion, though.
Yes the hell it is. It has to be to make a determination of if you should be using a Type 1 or Type 2 and if you settle on Type 1 it changes the list of available options!
Nope, because Type 2 isn't relevant here. Why are you thinking about it at all?
Because, to make a consideration of the "I need to create VMs to dev stuff on" Type 2 is still a valid option.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Is type 2 possible? Sure. Would it make sense? Obviously not. So why mention something so silly?
Silly is what we deal with all day long. You can't just say that something doesn't exist. Even though as an option it is one you would never recommend.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
This is where you go off the rails. Since this is common and everyone knows that this is a normal expectation, why would you state something that you know can't be true?
Because there are two thought processes to be discussed, you're imaging that there is only 1.
The First: I need to be able to setup and operate VMs from a Type 1 Hypervisor that can be managed remotely
that's not part of this discussion, though.
Yes the hell it is. It has to be to make a determination of if you should be using a Type 1 or Type 2 and if you settle on Type 1 it changes the list of available options!
Nope, because Type 2 isn't relevant here. Why are you thinking about it at all?
Because, to make a consideration of the "I need to create VMs to dev stuff on" Type 2 is still a valid option.
POssible, yes. Valid, no. He wants Linux as his main desktop, there is no valid use case where you'd want a Type 2 in that condition.
So we weren't wasting time by mentioning that something else is "possible" when it has no use case to bring up.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Is type 2 possible? Sure. Would it make sense? Obviously not. So why mention something so silly?
Silly is what we deal with all day long. You can't just say that something doesn't exist. Even though as an option it is one you would never recommend.
No one said it didn't exist, we just weren't wasting his time pointing out something "not" to use that he had already ruled out.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
POssible, yes. Valid, no. He wants Linux as his main desktop, there is no valid use case where you'd want a Type 2 in that condition.
How can you be so certain that VirtualBox on his Linux desktop is not an option he may want to consider?
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
POssible, yes. Valid, no. He wants Linux as his main desktop, there is no valid use case where you'd want a Type 2 in that condition.
How can you be so certain that VirtualBox on his Linux desktop is not an option he may want to consider?
There's no reason to choose it over KVM/QEMU.
Literally not a single benefit over the other.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
POssible, yes. Valid, no. He wants Linux as his main desktop, there is no valid use case where you'd want a Type 2 in that condition.
How can you be so certain that VirtualBox on his Linux desktop is not an option he may want to consider?
Because there is NO valid use case for it. Doesn't matter what his needs are, it never makes sense there any longer.
-
Again @scottalanmiller you are making statements and conclusions without providing validation and jumping to the rational that "I would never do this, so no one else should ever consider it, and damn be them if they need to understand why they shouldn't do it".
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
POssible, yes. Valid, no. He wants Linux as his main desktop, there is no valid use case where you'd want a Type 2 in that condition.
How can you be so certain that VirtualBox on his Linux desktop is not an option he may want to consider?
There's no reason to choose it over KVM/QEMU.
Literally not a single benefit over the other.
That's not the point I'm driving at.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
POssible, yes. Valid, no. He wants Linux as his main desktop, there is no valid use case where you'd want a Type 2 in that condition.
How can you be so certain that VirtualBox on his Linux desktop is not an option he may want to consider?
There's no reason to choose it over KVM/QEMU.
Literally not a single benefit over the other.
That's the bottom line. VirtualBox makes sense if you are talking a decade ago, or are using and sharing pre-existing VirtualBox workloads. But we know those things aren't the case here. It's a new install today. So VirtualBox is out, it's that simple.
