I am creating a malware/pentesting lab and I intend to use VMs for the actual work (kali, remnux, windows etc).

I know I could use almost any distribution, but I was wondering if there was any known for stable drivers and compatibility? Ideally I want something lightweight, low maintenance with a nice GUI as it's only going to be the host.

I would normally use Ubuntu, but I am getting a little bored of it.

Edit:

I love arch but it used to take a long time to install - this will take too long for a disposable system. (Most of my experience is with Arch, CentOS and Ubuntu). I am perfectly willing to learn a new Distro - but I don't want to start installing it and find it needs a lot of manual setup each time - or that it has issues with Virtualbox.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

So you want everything but aren't prepared to put any time in. Hmmm ... RHEL 8.

Thanks - its not that I don't want to put any time in, I am just working silly hours and want to spend time actually working on the malware.

I will look into red hat

Hi and welcome to LQ.

There is a sticky thread which discusses a lot of options about how to choose a distribution. Perhaps you should read it, here is the link for it Linux Newbies - How To Choose A Distro

This is difficult because you describe Ubuntu, and then say you are bored with it. Then you claim to love arch, but you don't have enough time to play with it.The effort you are describing here requires a great deal of effort.Therefore when you talk about being bored and not having time, I find myself wondering if either (a) you haven't thought this through much, or (b) you have 'an idea' and you are now asking other people to do the legwork to get you going.Yes, to be more offering, I would say that you have asked on the off chance that many may have distributions which fit your bill. But as the sticky thread shown in that link says:I agree with MillJ's point there. I can tell you to try exactly what I'm using right now, it's not one of the ones you've cited. But since you've stated that you can get bored and also don't have sufficient time to play with things which may take time, I feel that it may be pointless to offer any specific suggestions.

The reason you are doing this at all is because you wanted to build something complicated. Sounds like you have Ubuntu installed. Stay with something that you have already. It would satisfy both the stability as well as easy to use conditions. You are already familiar with how stable vs. not that it is, and also already familiar with the desktop.

Following edit:Sounds as if syg00 has it correct as well. Once again, if you have no time to spend looking at new distros, then "don't". Use what you have.

1 members found this post helpful.

I said I don't want to waste time installing arch.... its a somewhat disposable system that I don't want to do this for repeatedly. That doesn't mean I don't want to do anything new - I am not new to Linux and ran arch during uni.

I was just asking for recommendations for a lightweight distribution to run lots of VMs from - I have tried distributions that have had driver issues when doing this.

I didn't ask what the 'best' distribution is either... I asked what people liked based on a circumstance. If I asked for a hacking distro I assume people would suggest Kali or Blackbox - unfortunately I can't find a post based on stable Distros just to use as a vm host that is quick to reinstall and updates its drivers.

I have a stupid amount to do at the moment and I bored of random people judging me because I'm 'not willing to put effort in'. I barely get to sleep and I guarantee I put a lot of effort in - to programming, to infrastructure and to security.

Given that you've already been using Ubuntu and just want a change (but not too much of change) I'll suggest the distro I'm using, Mint 19.x MATE. It's nice and solid. Supported until April 2023.

Thanks

I obliviously didn't make myself clear enough about why I am not using arch though - its because it used to take hours to install even when I knew what I was doing (in 2013 anyway). I don't mind learning new stuff, but if I have to manually install every other package then it isn't suitable for my use case.

The rest of us are quite busy as well.

My core advice is to stick with Ubuntu until it gives you a concrete, technical reason not to use it. I use Mint, but if you don't like that one, then you don't.

Seriously, when I don't have time to devote to something like the platform,then I don't worry about the platform until it gives me a reason to change. Saying that you're bored with Ubuntu is a joke when you proclaim you can't even sleep. My interpretation is that you therefore don't have time to change your distro. So, run VMs from it, and if you finally have the time to consider something else do it then, when you have time.

Imho for vms fedora

1 members found this post helpful.

You can try Manjaro, specifically Manjaro Architect, which gives you complete control on what you can install on your system, such as DE, WM and other programs. Plus, you still have access to the AUR.

If that's too much, maybe a minimal installation of Debian?

As far as solid, I prefer CentOS. It won't work for music, video, etc, mainly because you have to add third party repos, which I hate doing. The only problem with CentOS is I think it uses Gnome out of the box, which I find abhorrent. Probably other (usable) desktops available. For a work distro that you can just use, I find it very stable and solid.


My .02.

Thanks, I normally use CentOS for servers without a GUI, but I was concerned about video drivers when it comes to VMs.

Manjaro looks fun if I can use something like clonezilla to preserve it each time I wipe the machine

The video drivers used with a VM (VirtualBox) are not part of the OS as far as I know - they are all internal to the VM software because the hardware is simulated. In other words, it won't matter what video drivers you install at the OS level in the host, the guests will always use a simulated hardware driver.

Manjaro is fine, but it is rolling and based on Arch, which may or may not be a good thing in terms of stability. I personally have never had a single issue with Arch and stability; it is the distro I used for the longest time after switching away from Gentoo. I just mentioned CentOS because if I were to use a Linux distro simply for work and not multimedia, I would use CentOS because it just works.

Pretty much any of the major distros these days are going to be pretty darn good in terms of stability.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks - this is really helpful

Maybe I will stick to CentOS and play with Arch etc another time.

I really liked Arch but since moving to UEFI hardware, I can no longer get a working install. Pacman was the Swiss army knife of package managers - so much power. You could always play with Arch in a VM.

Glad I could help.

1 members found this post helpful.