3 ms·
On the Linux side of the house, virt-manager is pretty great, though it leans much harder into KVM, so you don't necessarily get all the exotic architecture sup
by belthesar 5y ago
On the Linux side of the house, virt-manager is pretty great, though it leans much harder into KVM, so you don't necessarily get all the exotic architecture support of QEMU built in.
QtEmu for Windows gets you there, but it's very much so an API frontend, so if you're looking for simple from a choices perspective, this ain't it (though you might figure out your sane defaults and go from there).
Since you mentioned Fusion though, I'm guessing you're a Mac user, and UTM might be the ticket for you. The project started as a side-loadable/jailbroken device iOS VM system, but the project also makes a macOS app as well. https://mac.getutm.app/ https://mac.getutm.app/
This works both on Intel and Apple Silicon Macs, though in order to get virtualization acceleration, it's best to run workloads built for your native architecture (ARM on AS, x86(_64) on Intel).
- _8j50 5y agoThanks, I use both Mac and Linux as a host. Fusion is great for work stuff but in general I prefer VirtualBox because I can move around VMs to Linux. First time hearing about UTM, I decided not to go the M1 route because I need to run X86 VMs, can it emulate x86 on apple silicon?
- easton 5y agoIt can, it's slow as all get out though since Rosetta is a operating system level optimization, and doesn't apply in VMs.
- aidenn0 5y ago> On the Linux side of the house, virt-manager is pretty great, though it leans much harder into KVM, so you don't necessarily get all the exotic architecture support of QEMU built in. That's kind of funny because I end up accidentally creating non-KVM machines with virt-manager all the time...