- 120 views
- 6 replies
Virtual Machines are a really nifty way for people to run a completely separate operating system as a program on their existing operating system. These OS containers have a wide variety of uses ranging from testing various pieces of software or using them as a means to run non-native software in a pseudo-native format.
While they do have their downsides such as only having a fraction of the performance your machine can offer, I still find them to be both fascinating and very useful.
Do any of you have any experience using them and what did you use them for if so? What was your experience like both setting them up and actually using them?
While they do have their downsides such as only having a fraction of the performance your machine can offer, I still find them to be both fascinating and very useful.
Do any of you have any experience using them and what did you use them for if so? What was your experience like both setting them up and actually using them?
I use virtual machines so that I can use Windows at work, and so that I can perform build tests on some older versions of Microsoft Visual Studio. Other than that, I'm moving to Flatpak-style containerization for most of my stuff.
One advantage of VMs is that its easier to set them up than it is to set up a real machine. Hardware always is weird like that, and you have to deal far less with stuff like drivers. Besides, unlike with some RL installs (such as Windows 8, 10), freshly installed OS status in a VM is usually copyable.
One advantage of VMs is that its easier to set them up than it is to set up a real machine. Hardware always is weird like that, and you have to deal far less with stuff like drivers. Besides, unlike with some RL installs (such as Windows 8, 10), freshly installed OS status in a VM is usually copyable.
Looking for background art.
Member of The Pokédex Extended Fanon Edition
i've researched a lot about VMs in the past, and have always thought about getting one set-up, but realistically i don't ever have a need for one at all.
it's fun to watch people one Youtube test out viruses with it though.
it's fun to watch people one Youtube test out viruses with it though.
I use virtual machines so that I can use Windows at work, and so that I can perform build tests on some older versions of Microsoft Visual Studio. Other than that, I'm moving to Flatpak-style containerization for most of my stuff.
One advantage of VMs is that its easier to set them up than it is to set up a real machine. Hardware always is weird like that, and you have to deal far less with stuff like drivers. Besides, unlike with some RL installs (such as Windows 8, 10), freshly installed OS status in a VM is usually copyable.
I had a feeling you would respond Venia. :P How do you like Flatpaks? I'm still more of a proponent of system level applications personally. Containerized applications still seem like they need some work. I do like the idea though. I just wish they would integrate with the overall system better.One advantage of VMs is that its easier to set them up than it is to set up a real machine. Hardware always is weird like that, and you have to deal far less with stuff like drivers. Besides, unlike with some RL installs (such as Windows 8, 10), freshly installed OS status in a VM is usually copyable.
I also have a feeling you might be interested in this.
i've researched a lot about VMs in the past, and have always thought about getting one set-up, but realistically i don't ever have a need for one at all.
it's fun to watch people one Youtube test out viruses with it though.
Yeah. I've done some malware testing with VMs before. It's much safer and far more convenient because if one infects the system, you can just roll it back. Very nice feature to have.
it's fun to watch people one Youtube test out viruses with it though.
I did use them in the past mostly to install older versions of WIndows to play old games (late 90s-early 00s) or to try out Linux distros before I completely switched to Linux, but now I don't really have any need to use one.
I had a feeling you would respond Venia. :P How do you like Flatpaks? I'm still more of a proponent of system level applications personally. Containerized applications still seem like they need some work.
I feel like overall Flatpaks are a very good path to take, at least compared to whatever else the market has at the moment (AppImage is too barebones, and snapd is distro-specific and backend-specific). My bigger gripe with Flatpaks at the moment, which I'm not sure if it's being worked on, is that from my understanding local Flatpak installations are not shareable. Meaning, you can not eg.: download all the runtimes you need on one machine, and remote-mount from other machines so you can use the apps from various machines without having to install the entire runtime packaging on each one. Considering that some engines can total about 1.5 GB in disk space, this is a very important bother for me.
I do like the idea though. I just wish they would integrate with the overall system better.
Unpopular opinion but I prefer much that they are not coupled to the system, other than eg.: reading system-wide theming paths. I've seen several times that Flatpak can cause ambiguity when installing their own application icons that are similar to the ones provided by the system (so you end up with like, five Firefox icons without knowing which one is which) ; I'd prefer it be very clear when the application you are firing up, or using, comes from your system's application manager or not. Similarly, giving the containerized applications access to user environment configurations like home directory layout, mounted volumes, file type associations, global appmenu or theme configuration risks leaking private information about the system as well as about user files once more people start putting more "dangerous" applications into Flatpaks.That said, I feel the work Flatpak is doing in this respect is much better than what other more limited solutions like AppMenu are doing.
I also have a feeling you might be interested in this.
I'll have to look into this! (and I had to correct the link). While I feel this is up to a point redundant with eg.: PlayOnLinux, and I specifically don't like the heighttened integration (replacing "Open With" configurations for example), but the heightened compatibility when running the applications this way might make it worth it.
I did use them in the past mostly to install older versions of WIndows to play old games (late 90s-early 00s) or to try out Linux distros before I completely switched to Linux, but now I don't really have any need to use one.
You don't have any more need for one? AAAaaaaaa I envy you!(Also, if I may ask, what was the earliest Windows version you had to virtualize to play the games you wanted?)
Looking for background art.
Member of The Pokédex Extended Fanon Edition
I do wanna try to use a vitrual machine, but I don't have any throway computers I'd wanna try it on right now. I'm certainly interested, though. I do want to someday install virtualbox & play around with a Windows 3.1 virtual machine since that was way before my time, and I wanna experience it at least once. <_<
