Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on January 11, 2021 9:33 am wrote:
> Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on January 11, 2021 5:21 am wrote:
> > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on January 9, 2021 3:12 pm wrote:
> >
> > > I ask this seriously: what does achieving raw metal linux achieve over VM linux?
> >
> > Let's turn this around: why would someone want to run anything
> > in a VM, if there's no downside to run on bare metal?
>
> This is like asking "why write code for iOS (or Windows, or Linux", I'll write to the bare metal.
> Yes, writing direct to the CPU gives you more control. It also requires you to give up the capabilities
> that the OS provides, give up a lot of security, give up a protocol for resource sharing.
> Writing to the C virtual machine gives up something compared
> to writing in assembly, but provides value in return.
>
> What you get by running your 3rd part OS in a VM is a resource sharing protocol (with other OS's), the
> Apple security guarantees, and a ton of pre-existing code in the form of drivers and suchlike.
>
> Apple appears, pretty clearly, to believe that going forward providing VM
> support for alternative OS's is a good enough solution for most needs.
> I'm trying to see if they are wrong (or at least limited) about that on technical grounds.
> So far all I've learned is that they're massively wrong on theological grounds (for some
> particular theologies) but not on anything that I would call a technical ground.
>
> That's the limit of my interest. Go back to theology the rest of you. I have very little
> interest in that ongoing debate: "Apple: Satan incarnate? Or king of the devils?"

You didn't address any of my TECHNICAL points. Your pathetic persecution complex, snide slandering, and hypocrisy is just disgusting. What part of these do you insultingly claim are "theological"?

- Bare metal performs better.
- Linux generally performs better than OSX, this can have small or large impact in the host layer depending on what hypervisor and guest configuration is used, but it is non-zero. What hypervisor ships with OSX, by the way? How does it compare with KVM?
- Virtualization has some administration overhead. There are some benefits of it as well, but if you wanted those and wanted to minimize "tinkering", then you would use Linux on Linux/KVM, OSX is a new thing you have to work with.
- OS debugging and performance work is easier without a hypervisor, and much easier with a hypervisor you know and can easily modify if required.

You couldn't address any of them. The only one you attempted and sadly failed to even talk about was performance, but because you're clearly clueless about how technology actually works, you embarrassed yourself there too -- performance impact of VMs in the real world is not at all UNINTERESTING, as you claim. In fact it is an intensive focus of hypervisor, guest, and hardware development and can be very significant in some cases, which is a significant reason why VMs are not used in more places.

Hilarious you would pretend to faux-sincerely ask your disingenuous question about why people might not want to use a VM, and then start crying and ranting in other sub-threads about getting religious answers when met with points you can't rebut.