• clubb@lemmy.world
    51·
    11 months ago

    I know this isn’t the answer you were looking for, but they’re all the same. Arch, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, I’ve tried them all, and there isn’t a discernable difference.

    • Kickass Women@lemmy.worldOP
      97·
      11 months ago

      Well, I’m currently using VMware on Ubuntu to run Win 10 and Kali Linux. I don’t know what exactly caused the problem, it was either Ubuntu’s updates or VMware’s updates, but now Win 10 is unusable because it crashes (same with Kali Linux)

      Ubuntu imho is unstable in and of itself because of the frequent updates so I’m looking for another distro that prioritizes stability.

      • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
        36·
        11 months ago

        Well, I’m currently using VMware on Ubuntu

        Well there’s your mistake: using VMware on a Linux host.

        QEMU/KVM is where it’s at on Linux, mostly because it’s built into the kernel a bit like Hyper-V is built into Windows. So it integrates much better with the Linux host which leads to fewer problems.

        Ubuntu imho is unstable in and of itself because of the frequent updates so I’m looking for another distro that prioritizes stability.

        Maybe, but it’s still Linux. There’s always an escape hatch if the Ubuntu packages don’t cut it. But I manage thousands of Ubuntu servers, some of which are very large hypervisors running hundreds of VMs each, and they also run Ubuntu and work just fine.

          • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
            16·
            11 months ago

            It’ll definitely run Kali well, Windows will be left without hardware acceleration for 2D/3D so it’ll be a little laggy but it’s usable.

            VMware has its own driver that converts enough DirectX for Windows to run smoother and not fall back to the basic VGA path.

            But VMware being proprietary software, changing distro won’t make it better so it’s either you deal with the VMware bugs or you deal with stable but slow software rendering Windows.

            That said on the QEMU side, it’s possible to attach one of your host’s GPUs to the VM, where it will get full 3D acceleration. Many people are straight up gaming in competitive online games, in a VM with QEMU. If you have more than one GPU, even if it’s an integrated GPU + a dedicated one like is common with most Intel consumer non-F CPUs, you can make that happen and it’s really nice. Well worth buying a used GTX 1050 or RX 540 if your workflow depends on a Windows VM running smoothly. Be sure your CPU and motherboard support it properly before investing though, it can be finicky, but so awesome when it works.

          • ⲇⲅⲇ@lemmy.ml
            7·
            11 months ago

            I use virt-manager GUI to control KVM easily, but you can control anything easily with virsh command lines. I dislike VMware and VirtualBox, neither needed. Also, on terminal client virsh you can do much more configurations than just with virt-manager.

        • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
          2·
          11 months ago

          Remember that Desktop and Server editions are very different in terms of stability. Ubuntu has got to be one of the, if not the, most widely used linux distros for servers, that’s where the money is really in for them, so it’s more deeply tested before release to the public at large, but in my experience, in the last decade or so, Ubuntu is painfully lacking on too many fronts in it’s desktop versions.

        • dewritoninja@pawb.social
          1·
          11 months ago

          My only issue with qemu is that folder sharing is not a great experience with windows guests. Other than that Ive had a great experience, especially using it with aqemu

      • ShdwdrgnEnglish
        6·
        11 months ago

        I would second Debian for stability, it’s what I use for all my VM servers. I have always preferred KVM however, as I had a lot of trouble with VMware hogging my cpu years ago. KVM has the virtual machine manager available for GUI monitoring but I’m not sure how far it goes for creating new VMs as I’ve always handled the setup directly from command line.

      • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
        5·
        11 months ago

        Since you’ve been on Ubuntu, I would suggest Debian. The commands are pretty much the same across the board, and it’s one of the most stable distros in the wild.

        • Kickass Women@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          11 months ago

          No, I was relatively new to Ubuntu when I started using it so I didn’t have the wisdom to choose the LTS version.

  • walden@sub.wetshaving.social
    16·
    11 months ago

    Will you use it for other stuff or just virtualization? Proxmox is designed for virtualization. It’s based on Debian and has a web GUI.

        • ⲇⲅⲇ@lemmy.ml
          1·
          11 months ago

          For just two VM, any Linux distro is enough, virt-manager to easily run those VMs up and done. The default network will allow them to communicate between their NAT. Proxmox sounds too many complications for just some testing or development stuff.

          • kelvie@lemmy.ca
            3·
            11 months ago

            Proxmox is a lot more user friendly than virt-manager (yes I’ve used both, but I just started using proxmox).

            • ⲇⲅⲇ@lemmy.ml
              1·
              11 months ago

              But Proxmox is a big web interface app with many packages, right? virt-manager looks much easier than installing Proxmox.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        Other posters are right in that KVM is the same on just about every distro. Proxmox comes with extra tools for management and I think that makes it especially well suited.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    14·
    11 months ago

    It doesn’t really matter that much imo. Virtualization is done by kvm or xen, both distro independent. Qemu, libvirt and anything else you might need will only differ version, which may or may not matter to you (probably not). Maybe you can gain some performance by building from source, whereas something like Gentoo might come out ahead… Then again, you can build from source on any distro so…

  • throwawayish@lemmy.ml
    5·
    11 months ago

    virtualization

    Honestly, I don’t know. Though, I’d reckon there would be any significant difference between distros.

    stability

    Depends on what you mean with stability. If you meant it like how “stable” is used in “Debian stable”, then it would be any distro with a release cycle that chooses to not continuously deliver packages; but instead chooses to freeze packages and hold off updates (besides those related to security) for the sake of offering a relatively polished experience in which the behavior of the distro is relatively predictable. Some distros that score good on this would be Debian stable and openSUSE Leap. It’s worth noting that Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix allow one to have newer packages on these systems if desired.

    If, instead, you meant that the distro is less likely to break upon an update, then it’s important to note the following:

    • While you shouldn’t expect breakage to happen in the first place, unfortunately it’s realistic to expect it every so often (read: 0-2 times a year on non-stable distros).
    • If you have a lot of packages, then it’s more likely that at least one of them causes some breakage.
    • Technically, every update is a potential ‘breakage-moment’.
    • Packages that haven’t been installed through the official/native repos are more likely to cause breakage.
    • Relying on Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix for (at least some of) your packages should benefit the stability of your base system.
    • (GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper allows one to create snapshots one can easily rollback to in case of breakage. Therefore it’s worth seeking out a distro that configures this by default or set it up yourself on whichever distro you end up using (if it isn’t included by default).
    • So-called ‘atomic’[1] distros are (generally speaking) more resistant to breakage, but (arguably) they’re less straightforward compared to traditional distros. It’s still worth considering if you’re adventurous or if your setup is relatively simple and you don’t really feel the need to tinker a lot. Don’t get me wrong; these atomic distros should be able to satiate ones customization needs, it’s just that it might not be as straightforward to accomplish this. Which, at times, might merely be blamed on lackluster documentation more than anything else.[2]

    As for recommendations you shouldn’t look beyond unadulterated distros like (Arch[3]), Debian, Fedora, openSUSE (and Ubuntu[4]). These are (in almost all cases[5]) more polished than their respective derivatives.

    speed

    Most of the distros mentioned in this comment should perform close enough to one another that it shouldn’t matter in most cases.

    If you’re still lost, then just pick Linux Mint and call it a day.

    1. More commonly referred to as ‘immutable’. Atomic, however, is in most cases a better name.
    2. If you’re still interested, I’d recommend Fedora Silverblue for newcomers and NixOS for those that actually know what they’re getting into.
    3. I believe that one should be able to engage with Arch as long as they educate themselves on the excellent ArchWiki. It might not be for everyone, though. Furthermore, its installation (even with archinstall) might be too much for a complete newbie if they haven’t seen a video guide on it.
    4. Ubuntu is interesting. It has some strange quirks due to its over-reliance on Snap. But it’s worth mentioning, if you don’t feel like tinkering.
    5. With Linux Mint (and Pop!_OS) being the clear exception(s).
    • Kickass Women@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      11 months ago

      I’m going to give openSUSE Leap a try.

      If you meant it like how “stable” is used in “Debian stable”…

      Yup, that’s what I meant

      • throwawayish@lemmy.ml
        2·
        11 months ago

        Great choice! But as others already have noted; if it will be used for virtualization only, then perhaps distros like Proxmox should suit you better.

  • slabber@lemmy.ml
    4·
    11 months ago

    I jumped onto the FreeBSD train a year ago and needed some virtualization tool for my job. A started using bhyve and must say that I am quite happy with it and don’t plan to move to any other tool soon. Not sure how it compares to other tools performance wise but it does the job for me.

    • Klara@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      11 months ago

      I’ve really wanted to try bhyve but the lack of hardware passthrough support (PCIe GPU passthrough in my case) compared to KVM keeps me from it as of right now. Looks really good though.

      • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        11 months ago

        Any other BSD-based vm’s that do (PCI pass through that is)?

        Ive wanted to swap my debian server over for a while, but the occasional windows only software is keeping me in linux (what a time to be alive lol)

        • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
          2·
          11 months ago

          This has got to be 1 of the top 10 comments on “why Linux and not BSD?”

          • “Because I need to use some apps that only run in Windows.”

          • “Why not just use Windows?”

          • “Because (insert any excuse, valid or not)!”

          It is, indeed, a funny time to be alive, haha!

        • Klara@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          2·
          11 months ago

          I think Xen does? It’s available on a few different operating systems but idk how user friendly it is compared to QEMU/KVM or bhyve.