Is there a friendly alternative to VMWare/Virtualbox? I would move back to Virtualbox, but it’s now owned by oracle

  • Alex@lemmy.ml
    18·
    8 months ago

    Libvirt/qemu with either virt-manager or cockpit to control them. Alternatively there are various wrapper projects for qemu that hide the complex command line from you.

    • hddsx@lemmy.caOP
      1·
      8 months ago

      Learn the command line. Embrace the command line.

      And thank you I’ll check them out when I finally switch back

      • Alex@lemmy.ml
        1·
        8 months ago

        Oh I don’t mind it too much but I have a rich shell history 😀

        Certainly when using the newer options things are more consistent easy to follow. However it’s reputation for complexity isn’t underserved because Qemu is very flexible in what it can do.

  • Matt@lemdro.idEnglish
    14·
    8 months ago

    If you are using Linux, it does not get any simpler than Gnome Boxes. If you need more options, virt-manager is still fairly easy to use.

    • hddsx@lemmy.caOP
      1·
      8 months ago

      I…. dislike gnome. I’m not using Linux now, but I’m moving back if I’m forced to change to Windows 11.

      Is there a KDE equivalent?

      • Matt@lemdro.idEnglish
        2·
        8 months ago

        No, KDE does not have their own virtualization gui. Boxes can still be used on KDE as well though. If you really want nothing to do with Gnome, then virt-manager will be your best option.

      • flatbield@beehaw.orgEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        You could use cinnamon. Yes gnome tech based but quite different. I use that on my workstation and leave Gnome for my media center and laptop.

          • flatbield@beehaw.orgEnglish
            2·
            8 months ago

            Gnome 3 under the hood but it is nothing like the Gnome 3 your thinking about. It is more like Gnome 2 as far as the UI.

            There is still a Gnome 2 fork around also. Cannot remember the name. Used that in the early days but had some minor but annoying compatibility issues with some apps so went to Cinnamon which is based on the modern base to avoid those.

  • linkbattosai@lemmy.oneEnglish
    12·
    8 months ago

    I’m not sure which os you use but i’ve been using qemu. It’s a little bit more advanced than vmware or virtualbox but is very powerful when it comes to virtual machines. Depending on the specs on your host you can also emulate other processor architectures with it as well.

    • hddsx@lemmy.caOP
      1·
      8 months ago

      On a scale of Ubuntu install to LFS, how would you rate qemu’s difficulty to install?

      • flatbield@beehaw.orgEnglish
        2·
        8 months ago

        It is easy in itself. Like on Debian, just go into synaptic and install or use apg-get. Also if you can find a good how to to just follow.

        The thing about QEMU is that it has a blithering number of options and reading the man page to get an idea is a major time sink. The other challenge is deciding how you run it and interface with it via the GUI, and file system. You can setup but there are various choices. Also it integrates with other useful commands too – the commands to qcow manage images is a separate command. Or you can work with direct images and use dd, loopback, mount, etc to work with them. The nice thing is you get great Linux integration. The bad thing (or maybe good thing?) is helps to be good with man pages, bash scripting, command line, processes, networking, routing, and the Linux system.

        So do not think of it like an OS setup though you will probably do an OS setup in a VM, but qemu just a complicated command. In the end you’ll want to setup a folder tree, and some scripts to handle various things so it’s baked in. I use it that way, for flexibility but VirtualBox is much easier since there are menus for or that.

      • linkbattosai@lemmy.oneEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        I’m on Arch so it was actually in the repositories so it was easy to install. Qemu is command line only but you can download several front ends for it. I personally use virt-manager which was also in the Arch repositories. So depending on which distribution you use, it might be pretty easy to get it going on your end.

    • hddsx@lemmy.caOP
      1·
      8 months ago

      Looks a bit overkill, as I just use workstation pro. Do you have any familiarity with it to see if it’s easy to run a single VM?

      • PenguinCoder@beehaw.orgEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        Well it is a hypervisor like ESXI, so same concept. Running one vm would be simple, but yes; overkill. It is not the same level of virtualzation that Virtualbox is. For that, you could look into using Virt-manager if using a Linux based host.

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    10·
    8 months ago

    Feels like we need a sticky for this, as it’s an on-going discussion, with a lot of details/quirks.

    I’m currently testing TrueNAS Core, as they have a vast commercial side including NAS hardware - I think they’ll be around for a while, and they have the resources for continued development.

    With friends in the SMB IT space, we’re trying to figure out a migration path for their clients.

    Some other options (off the top of my head)

    KVM which is Linux native

    Proxmox

    Incus