KVM Desktop Setup Ideas
-
@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.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Against @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".
If YOU need to understand why you should never do this, just ask. Don't act like we are keeping something from someone. There is no reason to expose people to bad ideas just to show off that we can show why they are bad.
Would you also tell him how he COULD do RAID 0, then tell him why not? Of course not, that's dumb. We'd just never mention it as it isn't a valid option.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@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.
Ah, it is the point you SHOULD be driving at.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
KVM is also nice because you can continue using that machine as a regular desktop as well, if you need to do so. (Can't do that with VMware, Hyper-V or XenServer).
No one expects to use their Type 1 hypervisor as a desktop.
What? Tons do. Both KVM and Hyper-V are very popular for exactly this.
I did this with Hyper-V at my last job. It was great for spinning up a VM here and there for testing.
-
@EddieJennings 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:
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
KVM is also nice because you can continue using that machine as a regular desktop as well, if you need to do so. (Can't do that with VMware, Hyper-V or XenServer).
No one expects to use their Type 1 hypervisor as a desktop.
What? Tons do. Both KVM and Hyper-V are very popular for exactly this.
I did this with Hyper-V at my last job. It was great for spinning up a VM here and there for testing.
Yup, pretty much IT everywhere does it unless they have so much infrastructure that they do every little test on them instead of on desktops. It's nearly ubiquitous today.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@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.
Yeah, that's the reason I deployed a physical Fedora server running a desktop with Virtualbox... because a dev already had some super old virtualbox VMs going that nobody has time to redo. So it was VirtualBox by force. But like you said, that is not the case here, so it's not even worth mentioning VirtualBox or anything other than Hyper-V on Windows 10 or KVM with Linux desktops.
Desktop becase he needed TeamViewer access to a desktop on it. His requirement...
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
If YOU need to understand why you should never do this, just ask
This is the same mentality that SpiteWorks got fed up with. I understand the conditions and reasons for using alternatives. But people (and sorry for using you as an example @WrCombs) might literally not know the difference and need to understand why an alternative option is
chosenrecommended. -
I use VMWare Workstation Pro for my type 2 on my work daily driver. I tried switching my workloads over to Hyper-V and it just wasn't working for me. I couldn't get used to it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
If YOU need to understand why you should never do this, just ask
This is the same mentality that SpiteWorks got fed up with. I understand the conditions and reasons for using alternatives. But people (and sorry for using you as an example @WrCombs) might literally not know the difference and need to understand why an alternative option is
chosenrecommended.dont know enough to Chime in- so Im just eating popcorn and watching this all unfold.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
If YOU need to understand why you should never do this, just ask
This is the same mentality that SpiteWorks got fed up with. I understand the conditions and reasons for using alternatives. But people (and sorry for using you as an example @WrCombs) might literally not know the difference and need to understand why an alternative option is
chosenrecommended.that's fine, but it is not in the scope of this discussion. There is no end to "alternatives" we could mention. No one said that it wasn't possible, we just didn't bring up irrelevant plausible options.
Also plausible... not doing this at all, buying a server instead, using containers, buying one machine for each VM... on and on with silly "options" that you didn't mention for the same reasons we didn't mention Type 2.
-
You say "It's so obvious that it is never a consideration".
Yet all the time we are dealing with situations where if people had but a bit of explanation why an alternative would've been much better, would many of these problems no ever have existed.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
You say "It's so obvious that it is never a consideration".
Yet all the time we are dealing with situations where if people had but a bit of explanation why an alternative would've been much better, would many of these problems no ever have existed.
We are, but not in cases where it would never come up. There is no need for explanations for things outside of scope. In fact, it would seem crazy.
No one asked for comparisons or is in a situation to consider something else. There is no reason to assume that they were considering doing something silly that they never mentioned.
If you feel that way, then why are you not mentioning hundreds of terrible things that they "might" have considered, but didn't mention?
