VirtualBox 7.0.12

I tried to run Win XP on UTM on MacOS x64 about a year ago. it worked but it was many, many, (1000x) times slower than virtualbox or parallels. I didn't want to dig into it after wasting 2 hours. internet comments indicated that UTM is slower but hid the truth of how much slower it is. UTM doesn't work.

"great performance" is not a phrase to consider if you need to run x86 code on arm chips. Even with Rosetta 2 and the latest virtualization kit, unless you're running all arm code, it's so painfully slow.

(this also applies to any mac container solutions)

Often users only want QEMU, with a graphical interface on top. Libvirt is not just a graphical interface, but also an abstraction over multiple virtualization backends.

It tends to add complexity, while making more advanced usage of specific virtualization backends more difficult. Especially with its own configuration format based on XML.

Edit: Correction, libvirt is not the graphical interface, but entirely the virtualization abstraction. Virt-manager one of several interfaces.

I suspect they probably actively try to avoid people that only have one or two installs - there's not enough money in it & casual users are probably more likely to just abandon the product rather than try to get some crazy licensing deal approved with Oracle (I certainly would). So those users would be reasonably big timesinks with little possibility of phat commissions at the end of it.

Much better to make the initial inquiry & find out if their stalking horse of making VirtualBox free has meant it's landed in a large organisation where they might have many installs & they're much more likely to get a big payday for roughly the same amount of effort.

Indeed, do you have that gracious offer in writing ?

Entrapment would be if they coerced you into doing it when you weren’t going to do it on your own.

Some say the sewer is nice and warm, and are refusing to leave..

I'm running 7.0.10 and to share directories and clipboard data only the "guest additions" package is needed, which is free but closed source; no idea if they changed anything in newer versions though. I would have migrated ages ago to fully FOSS alternatives, but every time I wanted to use a GUI interface to do something non trivial that would require more clicks on a shell (the above features, plus changing ethernet interface modes, etc), I had to struggle with the simple truth that the vast majority of FOSS developers don't have a clue when designing an UI that is not aimed at themselves but actual users (which would be also the case for a lot of other FOSS). There is simply no match, all FOSS virtualization GUIs are ages behind VB, and that hurts me because VB GUI is stupidly simple, but clearly very well thought when it comes to actual usability. People should realize that good interface designers aren't failed programmers, and there is a huge need for them, both in free and proprietary software.

I only found out a few months ago, I've had VMs running ever since :-)

Got some ConnectX 2's now, was thinking of upgrading. Good to know this works, thanks.

Purely curiosity. It was super fun!

Ah, no I do not. I was using the GUI. I can see how having an SSH server is useful though!

Yes, she knows it’s a multipass.