Technology

34832 readers

23 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Can anyone recommend me a setup to virtualize Linux under Windows that runs smoothly? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I by now have wasted far too much time trying to setup a VM on my decently decked out machine (i5 13600KF, RTX 3080, 32GB DDR5, Win11 on a 4K Display) to run some kind of Linux in there that runs perfectly smooth - mostly for Development purposes.

So far I have tried all 3 major vm hosting softwares for windows (VMWare, Hyper V and Virtual Box) along side various (admittedly beginner friendly) distros (Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Mint, ...) yet I have not once gotten a System up and running with smooth animations and no notable input latency. Also I have of course turned on Hardware virtualization in my bios and benchmarks usually show that CPU performance seems to be where I expect it.

So I wanna ask the community what setup they are using under windows that just runs any kind of Linux smoothly and what point I may be missing.

Also installing Linux natively is not really an option for me since I want to be able to run Multiplayer games and I still consider myself a Linux beginner and don't wanna commit to install Linux directly on my host machine yet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I suggest trying Windows Subsystem for Linux. You'll get a simpler way to get familiar with the command line, which is the important part if you're interested in development.

That or dual boot, you don't need to set aside a large partition for messing around.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I respectfully disagree, as someone who's tried both WSL1 and 2, I'd avoid it. Not only does it not replace the experience of a proper Linux install, you run into weird issues or quirks that's caused by WSL, which is the last thing that someone new to Linux and trying to code at the same time, would want to experience. In my case, I had an issue with my Arch WSL2 install where the network would stop working for some weird reason. Tried a bunch of things, nothing worked, in the end I gave up on it because I wasted too much time on it, when I could've just used Hyper-V instead - which I did, and had no issues (which was also weird, considering WSL2 uses Hyper-V in the backend). Then the other weird issue was trying to clean up my broken WSL2 install - no matter what I did, I couldn't get my Arch install out of the wsl --list --alllist - even though it didn't actually exist anywhere.

And in case you ask, yes I did try other distros too, had the same issue with the network.

The whole experience left me with a bad taste in my mouth, like it was some unfinished beta product.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I use it daily for work and play, I agree for the longest time it had oddities around networking and file io specifically where it would be wonky, but honestly all that is smooth at this point. I’ve even had an entire gui running on mine after installing X11 and something like gnome-desktop

load more comments (1 replies)