"Microsoft Wants To Create A Complete Virtualization Stack With Linux"

[ossuser]

The world's most popular consumer OS is Android, so Linux as a tech has won there too. Of course no-one uses Android because of open source, and almost all Android devices are effectively "tivoised" and can't really be used as open source. But the problem IMO is not money, it's the fact that Android aside, there is simply no consumer or desktop-grade open source OS that's really, 100% ready. Ubuntu, Fedora, PureOS etc. are 90% there but that last 10% proverbially takes 90% of the effort.

The truth is what Linus has said long ago but many seem to refuse to understand it: a server OS is the easy part. A desktop or mobile OS is far more difficult to design and develop. But a significant part of the community still cherishes the idea that desktop computing and end user-facing applications (not web based) are somehow inferior and less worthy.

Same thing here as in my earlier post about Microsoft.

Google is (and always has been) a monopolist.

They want to control the platform.

Do you see a pattern ?

[starshipeleven]

I hope you're right about this. The reason why I said what I did was because I got an error dialog that stated that hyperv could not run nested outside of hyperv. I was sure it's a policy since it was detecting that hyperv was running in a virtualized environment which was not hyperv and choose not to run because of that. I was running the VM with "kvm64" CPU model tested under Windows 1803, 1809, and 1903.

Hmm, maybe it was a misleading error description meant to scare off people? (running Hyper-V as nested guest over another hypervisor is not officially supported but it's not blocked afaik)

From what I recall, you will need to pass special parameters to QEMU to expose special features Hyper-V needs or it won't work, but I don't know if that changed since then. See the blog of the redhat guy that added this functionality to KVM https://ladipro.wordpress.com/2017/0...-in-kvm-guest/
or Proxmox documentation about that (which also mentions Hyper-V works as nested hypervisor) https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Nested_...n#Requirements

Also see this support thread from Proxmox forums about a guy that says that it works on his Intel system but blows up on AMD hardware (and you can see the options he is using) https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/ne...working.56497/
(also someone a few months later claims Hyper-V is working as a guest under VMWare ESXi with just a warning popup)

this is the important line, the arguments for Hyper-V are using hv_ prefix, and I think you need to specify a real CPU model, or "host" to mean it's the same as the host.

-cpu EPYC,+kvm_pv_unhalt,+kvm_pv_eoi,hv_spinlocks=0x1fff,hv_vapic,hv_time,hv_reset,hv_vpindex,hv_runtime,hv_relaxed,hv_synic,hv_stimer,hv_tlbflush,hv_ipi,enforce,vendor=AuthenticAMD

You can add these by editing manually the xml file if you are using libvirt https://www.libvirt.org/kbase/qemu-p...-security.html

[jacob]

Same thing here as in my earlier post about Microsoft.

Google is (and always has been) a monopolist.

They want to control the platform.

Do you see a pattern ?

No, I actually don't. Every platform is by definition controlled by someone (otherwise it's not a platform). The Linux kernel itself is controlled, quite tightly in fact, by Linus. Virtually all FOSS projects from GNOME through Debian to OpenBSD are controlled platforms, and that's what makes them successful and useful. What makes someone a monopolist is when they take active steps to lock users in and prevent any form of competition. In the 90s, Microsoft deployed underhanded or downright illegal tactics to stop anyone from selling a computer with anything other than Windows. Even offering a dual boot BeOS+Windows was a step too far, and don't a local shop dare selling generic PCs with OS/2, or else! This has largely changed. Today HP, Dell, Lenovo etc will happily sell you desktops and laptops with Linux preinstalled, and of course there are the likes of System76, Raptor or Purism who specialise in Linux machines.

Regarding Google, frankly I think there are a borderline case as far as monopolism goes. There are unquestionably evil, but IMO it's mainly because of their invasive and Big Brother practices, them acting as a self-appointed censor and political enforcer, all the while happily bowing before the Chinese or Russian dictatorial regimes.

[Michael_S]

The world's most popular consumer OS is Android, so Linux as a tech has won there too. Of course no-one uses Android because of open source, and almost all Android devices are effectively "tivoised" and can't really be used as open source. But the problem IMO is not money, it's the fact that Android aside, there is simply no consumer or desktop-grade open source OS that's really, 100% ready. Ubuntu, Fedora, PureOS etc. are 90% there but that last 10% proverbially takes 90% of the effort.

The truth is what Linus has said long ago but many seem to refuse to understand it: a server OS is the easy part. A desktop or mobile OS is far more difficult to design and develop. But a significant part of the community still cherishes the idea that desktop computing and end user-facing applications (not web based) are somehow inferior and less worthy.

I would reverse that and say the problem is money, because no company has figured out how to make tens of billions of dollars off of FOSS consumer operating systems.

Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, Elementary, Deepin, etc... etc... will always trail Windows and MacOS and tivo-ized Linux like Android for features and driver support because they don't have even 1% of the resources to invest on their products as the proprietary options.

It's not that the community thinks desktop-facing applications are inferior and less worthy, it's that no matter how much they care, they can't match the proprietary options.