Is there any considerable cons to using Linux through a virtual machine only?

Is there any considerable cons to using Linux through a virtual machine only?

I mean, in my opinion there are three reasons one could choose to use Linux over Windows as their main OS:

>you have strong political opinions regarding software (such as freedom, privacy etc)
>you love programming and it is objective truth that the Linux programming environment is way better than windows's.
>you're a poorfag with rock solid morality so you won't pirate shit

Since I work with plenty of proprietary software (Adobe stuff) I can't convert myself to using Linux solely.

I am currently dual booting windows and Linux, but I use windows with much greater frequency, so it isn't making much sense to have such a large portion of my SSD allocated for Linux only. Yesterday I downloaded VirtualBox and did some of the stuff I used to do on my "non-virtual" (?) Linux install and I could do it just as well. Why should I not use Linux through a VM only?

Attached: 1530635862820.jpg (2400x1350, 179K)

I want that image with the gentoo logo

>Why should I not use Linux through a VM only?
Because you want Linux to run on your hardware instead of a VM. Duh?

Why should you not dual boot, why shouldn't you have two machines with a kvm switch, why shouldn't you use Wine, why shouldn't you use a virtual machine for Windows with GPU passthrough, why shouldn't you use macOS instead, the answer is it depends on what you want to do and what your priorities are.

i am the 3 above but can recognize that linux still has many problems where paid os's have long solved. im not talking about bad interface, lack of software or the usual crap people pray...

Doing that backwards. Run windows in VM on Linux.

Why not do the opposite and run Windows in a VM while running Linux on bare metal?

Because windows love to trow shit in your general direction?
Forced updates?
Crashes?
Forced reboots?
Bsods?
User opinion asking for some retarded shit?
You basically can't just leave windows unattended.

>you have strong political opinions regarding software (such as freedom, privacy etc)
its hardly political
software is a tool that you own
what you can and cannot do with it should be up to you
you should have the same freedom with your software as you do your hardware

you delid your cpu for a performance modification, you void a warranty
giving it away or selling it is still fine
you modify a program for a performance modification, you are violating muh copyrights
giving it away or selling it is horrible and you should be sued for everything you own

the creator designs their shit however they want to, you buy it, you then do whatever you want to with it
thats how literally everything you buy works except when muh copyrights come into play

the point where politics start to come in is when you get into who you think is behind this situation

perhaps your perspective can be political
i clearly have a capitalist and very personal-property oriented perspective

but the idea itself isnt political, its more mechanical and practical

There's no need to infect yourself with freetardism.
Install Windows 10 LTSC.

Linux is lightweight enough to run smoothly inside a VM. Windows isn't.

There are some ways to workaround that and freeze your windows install in time, so updates aren't shoved down your throat


You are the one with the most solid arguments here.

based and redpilled

>Linux is lightweight enough to run smoothly inside a VM. Windows isn't.
with proper software configuration and hardware support, you can get near-baremetal performance

if you apply the idea of sandboxing to virtualization, the less-secure unit should always be nested within the more-secure unit
in this case at least, that would be using a windows vm within linux - which is what i do when i need to run win software

then again use cases vary, and sandboxing might not be something that you care about

>There are some ways to workaround that and freeze your windows install in time, so updates aren't shoved down your throat
in particular, you can specify within the registry or group policy (ideally group policy)

- that windows should use an internal server for distributing updates
this feature is used by corporations to download updates on a single machine and distribute them on a fast and cheaper internal network to save bandwidth

- that the internal server ip should be [some random address] or perhaps the loopback address

- disable pretty much anything else involving updates wherever possible

then, if you used a random address for the internal server, block all communication with that ip address in the firewall within windows or ideally on your router or other network device

>You are the one with the most solid arguments here.
thanks fren, glad to see people who are able to have a positive conversation in these times

then what are you talking about then - nothing.

Shitty excuse - 2/10

Attached: los.jpg (228x221, 7K)

Run Windows on a VM on Linux.
Linux has KVM for better virtualization.
Linux also has Qemu which is a much faster virtual machine than Virtualbox.
Unless you want to shell out the $$ for vmware, virtualization on windows is shit, and even then you don't have KVM

>Linux is lightweight enough to run smoothly inside a VM. Windows isn't.
What kind of shit is this? With the proper hardware and a type-1 hypervisor (perhaps you're just used to type-2 poor-tier shit like virtualbox?) Windows runs great in a VM.

Someone point me to specific, detailed instruction on running a windows VM inside gnome boxes, because even after installing the extras .exe from the official site to get GPU stuff running, it still runs slowly and laggily.
Meanwhile I installed windows on virtual box, and just a few simple clicks later everything just works and window sizes scales automatically etc.

Why you need Linux at all?

It's a mix of it being a way better development environment than windows and emotional attachment. I don't program much, but I want to do it comfortably when I do.

Okay I fully support pirating but your logic is nigger tier. No shit hardware and software is different, I can’t press cntrl c cntrl v and have a second CPU to give away, but with software you can. Which makes it impossible to monetize without restrictions, and without money being in it you wouldn’t see the progress we have. If you’re going to support pirating don’t be such a nigger about it

I also spent like 2 years using Linux only and I learned a lot. Had a lot of fun, gained new skills, even did some freelance software development. I didn't like working with software development though. I like it as a hobby. Went through several distros before coming full circle and settling with Ubuntu. Still have an emotional connection to Arch. Still hold curiosity towards Gentoo.

I believe that his post is talking about software being libre. Meaning it wasn't about the software being obtainable at zero cost.

He made a direct comparison from hardware tools and software tools. Which is ignorant as fuck. Like straight up retarded. I can give my friend my hammer, but then I don’t have a hammer. While I may know the theory behind making a hammer, and could, if I took the time, at the end of the day, I can only give the hammer I have. If I have even something banal as Excel, and my friend wants it, I can crack and redistribute and still have excel. I’m a fan of pirating as a method of demoing, where demoing has gone the way of the dinosaur due to pirating. Often enough pirated software has limits such as not being able to go online anyways, which effectively makes it a demo with limited functionality. Which is fine, if I pirate something it means I wasn’t going to buy it anyways, unless I get to try it out and I like it enough to want full functionality. Sales only have potential to be gained. But comparing it to hardware is quite honestly just the most niggerish way of justifying it

I stand by what I said in my previous post: you completely misunderstood him. This isn't about getting something for zero cost, it is about being able to do whatever you want with it and with zero laws preventing you from doing so. Copyright infringement is arguably an aspect of this, but if everyone were to have access to the source code, "piracy" wouldn't exist. He is only comparing software to hardware because they are so close together - there is nothing to be "read" from it.

im not quite sure how to go about explaining myself to you, since i have never really had this debate before, but i will try
please be patient i have autism

my first post was simply meant to regard the practical and mechanical purpose for free (libre) software, free of any personal or political undertones
but maybe im bad at doing that

essentially, no matter what your ideological positions, the main point of developing and using free software is to, as i put it, put software components on the level of physical property
free software is for people who, for one reason or another, require the ability to do as they please with their software without the overhead of legal red tape
if you have a free software component in your system, whether it is a binary or source code, you can do whatever you need to with it - including decontruct, modify, and as you addressed - copy it freely and distribute as desired

you are obviously correct that software is different from physical things in the sense that it can be infinitely copied at practically no cost
however, free software is licensed as such entirely at the will of the people who ceveloped it
there is no comparison to piracy
this transaction is entirely legitimate, and no property is being harmed or violated in any way

software that is licensed like this is desireable for many practical purposes, and of course some politics and ideologies encourage or discourage the desire for this practicality
but ultimately, the idea of free (libre) software itself is not inherently coupled with politics or ideology

(cont)

Christmas gift for you.

Attached: 1545584994902.jpg (2400x1350, 163K)

as for my particular beliefs beyond pure practicality, which you seem to be more interested in, i am opposed to all forms of "intellectual property"

that is in the sense that no entity can own a concept, idea, or thought
property is inherently physical, as far as i am concerned

when man first came to be on this earth, at some point a man invented the spear
he killed people with it, and it worked well for that purpose
inevitably people copied it, as they tend to do when something works
when the first spearman heard of this, did he command the newer spearmen to cease?
perhaps, but ultimately all the other men had spears no matter what he decided to decree

to further the analogy, many other people invented the spear indepedently, far away from the first spearman
of course many of them thought themselves to be the first to invent the spear
all of them owned the spear that they made, but did any of them "own" the idea of a spear?
of course they did not

(cont)

ultimately, the spear is just a sharp thing on the end of a stick
at the end of the day, anybody with a pointy rock, a stick, and some hair could create a spear - regardless of who claimed to own the idea of a spear

that of course directly addresses my opinions on patents, but software is more nuanced that that, right?

not really
software is, obviously, composed of a sequence of ones and zeroes
that argument gets made often, and is usually dismissed without the bother of much thought
why?
this doesnt only apply to hard drives and cds
you can recreate any software or file with any sequence of objects that can represent two values
i can duplicate files by arranging pennies in the correct orientation and order
with the right machine, the pennies can be interpreted as the thing i copied

just like the spear is just a stick and a stone and able to be made by anybody with those resources, software and other computer files are made up of sequences of binary values that can be recreated using anything that can represent binary values
perhaps, even, with sticks and stones

does the fact that software is easier to copy change anything?
in my personal opinion, no
difficulty does not determine how right or wrong something is

regarding software copyrights and patents, what does the self-claimed owner think that they own?

do they own that particular sequence of ones and zeroes?
that is easily bypassed with bittorrent, which breaks files down into smaller binary chunks that are of little use on their own

do they own all individual sections of the binary sequence?
what happens when another entirely unrelated file happens to include an identical section of binary by pure chance?

do they own the thing that is produced by that sequence?
because then, say in the event of illegally obtaining a copy of a song, the copyright would only be violated at the time the song is played

how do you enforce this? what is actually "owned" here?

In your scenario, it might make sense to do things this way.
The main downside to using a VM is the lack of connectivity and sharing of resources.
My main (technical, I also use it because of those ideological reasons you listed) reason to use linux over windows is linux is better at handling files. The next one would be multitasking.
On linux, I always find it easy to get work done through 7 different applications, across several desktops and several monitors. On Windows, I can use one, sometimes two applications.
One of the worst type of applications to me is an IDE. I loathe the concept of it, it is so fucking bad.
And everything on Windows is an IDE.
What I mean is, every application on Windows consist of a single window with a ton of stuff, toolbars, panes, windows and tabs or whatever. This is the mentality of an integrated environment.
It is really bad design.
What I like is to have a separate window or application for each task and then let my window manager solve the problem of displaying stuff and switching between them.
This way, I can buy an extra monitor and put a window on that without having to beg the system to play nice (which it never fucking does, because everyone sucks at making interfaces, the only way to do it right is not to do it).

Because your Linux install is easier to bork than Windows. With snapshots you can revert and get back to a working OS. And Windows is more stable so a better host.

>strong political opinions
>freedom, privacy etc
My only strong political opinion is that conformist bugmen that think this way should be gassed.

Op spends more time on windows, it would make no sense to run his main os on a vm

Running Linux inside a VM in Windows defeats the privacy advantages of Linux. If you're cool with Windows snooping on you, then go ahead. I do both arrangements. I just don't use the Linux in a VM on Windows for anything personal. It's basically a transcoding machine now.

>you're a poorfag with rock solid morality so you won't pirate shit
It's not immoral to violate copyrights from companies like Microsoft, just like how it's not immoral to enact violence in response to violence.
Also if you consider the law to be your moral system then you should end yourself and raise the IQ average

personally, i think a linux hypervisor with a windows guest is better than a pure windows install even if you only really use windows
the ability to use the linux hypervisor to monitor and control what windows does and is allowed to do is a much neglected possibility in "casual" virtualization
additionally, it gives you the option of running critical software within the linux hypervisor where it can be independent of microsoft's inevitable fuckups

what about running an os that actually has security patches on bare metal ? fucking retard
>windows is more stable
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

have a good day autistic nicebro

At work I primarily use a Win 10 VM running on ESXi with no issues. VDI is a thing.

>theft is ok when I do it
very moral user

Your reading comprehension puts you at 4th grade level, if you're over the age of 10 try the nearest roof

adobe software looks pretty good in wine nowadays

Linux isn't easier to break, but it is easier to fix. You can have snapshots as well on Linux. Linux has a better hypervisor, better resource usage and performance.

Pretty much none of what you said is true

> objective truth that the Linux programming
This is complete bullshit to anyone that has actually worked in the industry.