Is there a reason that VirtualBox is more popular than KVM for desktop on Linux?
 

For server usage, it seems to me that KVM is more popular than VirtualBox. But what's the reason that on Linux desktop VirtualBox is more popular than KVM?

What makes you think that?

It might be that many instructions you find on the internet want to be OS agnostic. KVM only works in Linux. On the other hand, VirtualBox is not considered an entreprise-grade solution and therefore not suitable for servers.

I think VB is popular on the desktop because it's quite accessible and easy to use. I use it a lot for distro-hopping.

One doesn't seem to hear much about AQEMU these days. I was an exclusive VirtualBox user until finding out just how much fun can be had once you venture into Qemu/KVM territory, and AQEMU makes the transition very easy.

I find, and everything I have read is that for server stuff KVM wins everytime between the two. However VirtualBox is better for gui based vms, especially with the guest additions making it almost seamless. Can't do that with KVM that I have seen.

I use Aqemu,... It's very familiar to those who have used VirtualBox. It does "dumb down" things a little bit, but that is excusable. Plus,... I've actually found that running Aqemu/KVM on RPM based distros is actually easier/better than on DEB based distros,... Just an impression (for what it's worth).

I use VirtualBox probably just because I'm lazy -- I can install it, then install guest OSs and check them out. With KVM I would have to take more time and install more programs.

It's actually the same, or almost, for KVM. On Centos 7 (as an example), yum group install "Virtualization Host" (I think), and you are done.

The VirtualBox GUI is perhaps a bit more comfortable.

VB is an entirely desktop oriented system, KVM is much, much more, but it lacks the desktop focus, so it might seem like VB is more popular on desktops (and frankly, I'm not so sure about it, without seeing any real stats). In terms of install numbers or VM numbers, KVM is outpacing VB by many degrees, but that's proper virtualization and cloud deployments, not just local desktops.

Not at all. That might be the only part that you've seen, but that doesn't mean that's all there is. You can go your entire life without ever touching X or a GUI with VB. Literally everything can be created, manipulated, started, stopped, removed, etc. from the command line.

Hmm. I want to start with virtualization sometime later this year. I was under the impression as a SUSE user, that openSUSE sort of gently "prefers" KVM or am I wrong? I thought it prudent to go along with KVM, but now I'm getting doubts. I need it only on the desktop for testing distros.

On the other hand I seem to remember from this year's voting, that VB is much mor popular. So how to proceed :scratch:?

n/m. Caffeine shortage.

I was intrigued by this so I installed KVM and a GUI and, yes, it's almost the same as VirtualBox but the focus with KVM seems to be more on machines which could be kept running and only connected to for maintenance. It seems more versatile on a lot of ways than VirtualBox but a little more complicated to set up. I haven't messed with 3D acceleration or a Windows guest to see whether there's any difference there though and, sadly, I don't think I've any way of trying a modern Windows any more since my Windows 10 evaluation ran out.

http://dev.modern.ie/tools/vms/linux/

Only 32bit machines but its good for testing (Win7 can be reactivated a few times). You can convert the virtualbox format to qcow2 or raw and they work with KVM.
But KVM has absolutely no 3D support to date (not even with QXL/Spice virtual video).

Thanks for that. It's good to have a source for Windows VMs in case they're needed for testing.