Is there a reason that VirtualBox is more popular than KVM for desktop on Linux?
Linux - Virtualization and CloudThis forum is for the discussion of all topics relating to Linux Virtualization and Linux Cloud platforms. Xen, KVM, OpenVZ, VirtualBox, VMware, Linux-VServer and all other Linux Virtualization platforms are welcome. OpenStack, CloudStack, ownCloud, Cloud Foundry, Eucalyptus, Nimbus, OpenNebula and all other Linux Cloud platforms are welcome. Note that questions relating solely to non-Linux OS's should be asked in the General forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
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?
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.
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.
Distribution: K/Ubuntu 18.04-14.04, Scientific Linux 6.3-6.4, Android-x86, Pretty much all distros at one point...
Posts: 1,802
Rep:
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).
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
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.
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.
Distribution: openSuSE Tumbleweed-KDE, Mint 21, MX-21, Manjaro
Posts: 4,629
Rep:
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 ?
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by berndbausch
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.
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.
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.
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).
Last edited by gradinaruvasile; 07-29-2015 at 04:33 AM.
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.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.