DonationCoder.com Forum

Main Area and Open Discussion => General Software Discussion => Non-Windows Software => Topic started by: ewemoa on March 07, 2014, 04:08 PM

Title: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 07, 2014, 04:08 PM
Looking for an easy to install (so recognizes hardware well) *NIX -- though light on resources -- to run as a host OS for running VirtualBox guest OSes on top of.

Seen requests like this but usually see suggestions such as "start with some minimal system and just add VirtualBox and a few other things" -- but was hoping that there was an effort that shipped with VirtualBox as am not too keen on maintaining too much of a customized set up and was hoping if it were bundled that it might be better tested / integrated.

Any recommendations / ideas?  Am currently looking through this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Linux_distribution) but might also consider this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions_that_run_from_RAM).


Currently trying CrunchBang, but this requires installing VirtualBox after the OS installation.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Vurbal on March 07, 2014, 04:30 PM
I was looking for the same thing this a few months back but didn't put much effort into it before losing interest. I'd really like to be able to reconfigure my old dual PIII server using Turnkey Linux virtual machines which pretty much requires *Nix.

If I were more ambitious I'd probably look into creating a customized Debian distro for the job. I'm not likely to be that ambitious without some pressing motivation though.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 07, 2014, 06:34 PM
Might it make more sense to go up a level of abstraction and use a FOSS type-1 hypervisor like Xen, then install whatever you want (including your distro) under that? Bare-metal hypervisors are as minimal a host footprint as you can get for virtual machines.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 07, 2014, 06:45 PM
To use a type-2 hypervisor ( VirtualBox et al) in minimal configuration, the easiest would be to start with a distro's server version. You probably could get a smaller one (TinyCore etc.) to work. But you'd also likely have headaches identifying and installing all the dependencies when you went to install VirtualBox. Starting with the distro's text-based (i .e. non-GUI) server should already include everything you needed without being to bulky since it's the desktop environment and productivity packages that take up most of the space in a distro. A plain old server setup is pretty small.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 08, 2014, 07:35 AM
Thanks for the suggestions :)


I've made a number of attempts to get Xen working over the years, but without much success...never quite make it far enough.  Have you had good experiences with it?

I'm trying to avoid too many steps during set up (cf. getting Arch and/or Gentoo installed - worth it a few times, but not great if I want to recreate a similar set up from scratch) as well as having VirtualBox or comparable stop working somewhere down the line because of an upgrade...


In the mean time, I tried out Manjaro (with Pamac / Octopi) which was a pleasant surprise -- still a bit rough but looks promising.  There also appears to be some kind of remastering support (ManjaroISO).


Now if DistroWatch.com's "Search Distribution" page (http://distrowatch.com/search.php) would let one specify shipped-by-default packages...
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 08, 2014, 07:55 AM
I've made a number of attempts to get Xen working over the years, but without much success...never quite make it far enough.  Have you had good experiences with it?
-ewemoa (March 08, 2014, 07:35 AM)

Outside of a class lab, no. It seemed to work as advertised although it was a little fiddly to set up. But that was also well over 18 months ago so I'd guess things would have changed for the better on that front.

I'm trying to avoid too many steps during set up (cf. getting Arch and/or Gentoo installed - worth it a few times, but not great if I want to recreate a similar set up from scratch) as well as having VirtualBox or comparable stop working somewhere down the line because of an upgrade...
-ewemoa (March 08, 2014, 07:35 AM)

That's why I'd just go with a vanilla Debian/Ubu server setup as the base. You could always strip out anything you really didn't want afterwards if size is that important. Then install VBox. Dump a copy of installed packages via synaptic - or use a config backup tool like Aptik and it should be a breeze to build a new one (real or virtual) any time you want. The beauty of this approach is it will autoupdate through the repositories once it's built so that hassle goes away.

Hmm...damn...now you've got me thinking... ;D
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 08, 2014, 08:46 AM
That's why I'd just go with a vanilla Debian/Ubu server setup as the base. You could always strip out anything you really didn't want afterwards if size is that important. Then install VBox. Dump a copy of installed packages via synaptic - or use a config backup tool like Aptik and it should be a breeze to build a new one (real or virtual) any time you want. The beauty of this approach is it will autoupdate through the repositories once it's built so that hassle goes away.
-40hz (March 08, 2014, 07:55 AM)

I know you said "like Aptik", but just to confirm, Aptik doesn't work with Debian, right?

One thing that I'm a bit fuzzy about is how much cruft might remain from stripping things out -- it's not so much size but not wanting extra services running (more from a security perspective than anything else).  I've had odd experiences trying to get cups-related, portmap/NFS-related, and other things to go away before when trying the "carve away unnecessary things" approach.  It's been a while since I closely examined Debian's default server installation -- do you happen to recall if it has these sorts of things by default?

May be I'll try this sort of approach with Manjaro and try out its remastering capabilities...

Hmm...damn...now you've got me thinking... ;D

Ha ha ha!
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 08, 2014, 12:54 PM
I know you said "like Aptik", but just to confirm, Aptik doesn't work with Debian, right?
-ewemoa (March 08, 2014, 08:46 AM)

Some people have cobbled it to work with Debian, but I wouldn't advise it. Debian repository software usually slots very nicely into Ubu - but not the other way around with PPAs. And since Aptik is primarily for handling PPAs (which are intended to be exclusive to Ubuntu and its derivatives) there's really no reason to try it anyway.

In any Debian-based (i.e. non-Ubuntu or other VCIW modded) distro you can use the dpkg -- get selections > {some file} command to compile a list of installed software, and then pipe that same list back in via dpkg --set-selections < {some file} and then use dselect to reinstall some or all of it.

If you're less "blood & guts" - or just don't want to dork around with dpkg and dselect (which allows a lot more granular control) just use Synaptic's "Generate package download script" and "Add downloaded packages" feature to dupe the entire works.

Note: I'm guessing you already know about this stuff so I'm mostly including it for any non-Nix user who's reading along in hopes they'll someday give The Penguin a try.

--------------------------------

re CUPS: don't read too much into anything from the perspective of a frustrated CUPS user. It's a mess that's slowly getting worked out. CUPS got so bad (and unmaintained) that a several distros stopped including it in their base install of even desktop releases. Even now it has problems with a lot of HP printers - although that may not be completely CUPS fault since HP can't seem to decide if they really want to support Linux or not.

Most annoying! :down:

--------------------------------

re: Manjaro

I have zero experience with Manjaro, so please keep us updated on what you find out if you do? Thx! :Thmbsup:
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 08, 2014, 06:58 PM
Ok. Did some quick research and found somebody else over at the Crunchbang forum who seems to be thinking the way I am. So maybe there's something in it worth trying.

Start with a Debian net install. Skip the desktop environment and widows manager options and only have it install X.

Once you've got that, do an 'apt-get install virtualbox'. If apt works as advertised (and the VBox config was set up correctly for the repositories) it should also install all the dependencies needed.

Disclaimer: I haven't tried this so I don't know if it will work as described. I somehow don't think it will be quite that simple. But at least it's a place to start - and help determine what else probably needs to be done.

--------------------------

Quick note: Did some checking - using TinyCore as the host distro is definitely not gonna work.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 09, 2014, 03:54 AM
Start with a Debian net install. Skip the desktop environment and widows manager options and only have it install X.

Once you've got that, do an 'apt-get install virtualbox'. If apt works as advertised (and the VBox config was set up correctly for the repositories) it should also install all the dependencies needed.
-40hz (March 08, 2014, 06:58 PM)

I think one might be able to skip specifying the installation of X -- somehow I get the feeling that just doing apt-get install virtualbox will pull X in...wishful thinking?

As you were probably hinting, after installing VirtualBox, I'd guess there may be some things to tweak such as adding certain users to the vboxusers.

Since I dug out a spare machine, may be I'll give this a try.

Quick note: Did some checking - using TinyCore as the host distro is definitely not gonna work.

I came across a thread on their forums with a post indicating someone had managed at some point (though perhaps with an older version of VirtualBox):

  http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,1761.msg27870.html#msg27870 (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,1761.msg27870.html#msg27870)


Regarding Manjaro, I've now installed it twice -- not much luck with UEFI, but I suspect this has more to do with the specific machine I tried it on (from what I've read, a fair number of Lenovo notebooks seem to have "uncooperative" UEFI implementations).

I think Arch's docs are in better shape (many of which make sense for Manjaro), but Manjaro was much easier on my fingers and time during installation :)

Manjaro seems to suggest using Pamac or Octopi (roughly GUIs for Arch's packaging tool "pacman") and I'm pretty sure I'd have found those easier to use at first than pacman (though I think pacman is worth learning, I wouldn't want to start there if I had to start over).

I went for the Openbox flavor but it looks like one can choose from:

  XFCE
  KDE
  Net (bare)

and some other community-created versions:

  Cinnamon
  Gnome
  LXDE
  Enlightenment

Hmm, hadn't noticed the Net version...may be I can try out your build-up-from-minimal idea with that as a starting point.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 09, 2014, 06:01 AM
I got the stable net install iso from Debian and performed the following steps:

1. Boot from iso-on-USB (dd-ed to USB memory)
2. Run the text installer and at the tasksel step unselect everything
3. After rebooting, install the sudo package and add the non-root user to the sudo group (then relogin)
4. Tell apt-get to install the virtualbox and xinit packages and accept the installation of the additional packages
5. Add the non-root user to the vboxusers group
6. Reboot for the VirtualBox modules to load (modprobe might work instead)
7. Log in and use startx to start X
8. From an xterm, start VirtualBox
9. Test run a guest OS

Seemed to work here.

For reference, I think the total disk space used (not including swap) was about 1.3 GB.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 06:57 AM

Seemed to work here.
-ewemoa (March 09, 2014, 06:01 AM)

Bingo! Nice work Mr. E. Let's catalog the above for future use. In the meantime don't neglect to create a disk image backup of the install. It will easily fit on a DVD or a modest USB key too. How convenient! :Thmbsup:
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 09, 2014, 07:33 AM
In the meantime don't neglect to create a disk image backup of the install.
-40hz (March 09, 2014, 06:57 AM)

Out of curiosity do you have a favorite method?  I used Redo Backup for a while but it doesn't seem to be actively developed.


I also went through a similar procedure with Manjaro's Net installation iso with some success:

1. Boot from iso-on-USB
2. Log in as manjaro user (with password as reported on screen)
3. Start installer via sudo setup and proceed to the end appropriately
4. Reboot and log in as a non-root user that can use sudo
5. Using pacman install the following packages: xorg-xinit, xterm, virtualbox, linux310-virtualbox-host-modules (match to linux kernel version), and qt4
6. Add non-root (current) user to vboxusers group
7. Load VirtualBox modules via modprobe vboxdrv
8. Edit $HOME/.xinitrc to exec xterm as last line
9. Start X via startx
10. From the xterm start VirtualBox
11. Test a guest OS

The total disk space used in this case was around 1.5 GB.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 08:48 AM
^No real favorites when it comes to that. I'll just use whatever is available that I know works. For imaging, Clonezilla and DD are what I use. DD mostly if it's just for me. Clonezilla for clients and anybody else. Clonezilla can also install GRUB so that's a big plus when performing a disaster recovery. Clonezilla also has some nice features for use with Windows-based systems. (Check out their website for details.) And it's now UEFI (or 'URFU' as I like to think of it) bootable.  So if you straddle multiple OSes, having one tool to learn and standardize on is really nice too.

For what you're doing here, and at your level of experience, DD is probaby the quickest and easiest. Most backup apps (in true Unix tradition) invoke DD when you tell them to make an image anyway.

Ahhh...the beauty of pipes, scripting, and (optionally) a simple GUI toolkit. You can mashup an app so easily now that somebody else did all the hard work and wrote an actual command to do something. That's the beauty of the Unix Philosophy. Code somthing to do one thing extremely well. Don't reinvent the wheel. Combine pieces for convenience and more complex requirements.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Tuxman on March 09, 2014, 10:13 AM
easy to install (so recognizes hardware well) *NIX -- though light on resources
-ewemoa (March 07, 2014, 04:08 PM)

Not having read the rest of the thread:

OpenBSD.

Much less than 100 MB RAM usage on my "hey, let's test OpenBSD" machine (latest 5.5-CURRENT with default X installation), fast and clean base system installation. It even found my Radeon card immediately.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 01:34 PM
Not having read the rest of the thread:

OpenBSD.
-Tuxman (March 09, 2014, 10:13 AM)

@ewemoa - re: BSD

This (http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/Using_VirtualBox/10.0) from the PCBSD website:

PC-BSD® 10.0 automatically installs the VirtualBox[1] open source virtualization program and the VirtualBox Guest Additions[2] with the operating system. The guest additions add mouse pointer integration, shared folders between the host and guest, better video support, and a shared clipboard.

Might be worth a look/try.

re:OpenBSD

IIRC, the developers of OpenBSD weren't much interested in having OpenBSD do anything with VirtualBox - either as guest or host. There was a time not so long ago when they seemed rather dismissive and hostile towards both Wine and VirtualBox. But that might have changed. Maybe Tuxman can point you to a how-to or tutorial. I've got nothing on my KB about doing it. And considering OpenBSD has established security as its raison d'être, I could easily understand why they might look askance at something that wishes to create or run in a virtual environment under their carefully secured OS. So I wouldn't be surprised if it were difficult or impossible to do right now. But I'll have tp leave that for others with more OpenBSD experience to say for certain.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Tuxman on March 09, 2014, 01:36 PM
Your quote is related to using PC-BSD as a guest system.

OpenBSD works as a host (http://daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=4278) (or doesn't, depending on who you ask). - PC-BSD is not exactly "light on resources".
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 01:45 PM
Your quote is related to using PC-BSD as a guest system.

OpenBSD works as a host (http://daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=4278) (or doesn't, depending on who you ask). - PC-BSD is not exactly "light on resources".
-Tuxman (March 09, 2014, 01:36 PM)

If so, I stand corrected - although that's not the way I read: PC-BSD® 10.0 automatically installs the VirtualBox[1] open source virtualization program and the VirtualBox Guest Additions[2] with the operating system.

That says (to me) that PCBSD is installing (as in hosting) VBox rather than the other way around.


Either way, I'm more familiar with using BSD to create bespoke servers rather than VM hosts, so I'll defer to you to provide instructions or links on how to do it under OpenBSD.  
 :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Tuxman on March 09, 2014, 01:47 PM
and the VirtualBox Guest Additions[2] with the operating system.
-40hz (March 09, 2014, 01:45 PM)

Guest Additions are installed on the hosted system.

Either way, I'm more familiar with using BSD to create bespoke servers rather than VM hosts, so I'll defer to you to provide instructions or links on how to do it under OpenBSD. 
-40hz (March 09, 2014, 01:45 PM)

RTFM...  :D
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 01:50 PM
Guest Additions[/i][2] with the operating system.
-Tuxman (March 09, 2014, 01:47 PM)

I know. Please read the whole sentence:

PC-BSD® 10.0 automatically installs the VirtualBox[1] open source virtualization program and the VirtualBox Guest Additions[2] with the operating system.

RTFM...

I have - and still refer to it regularly whenever I'm working with OpenBSD. It's a lot to memorize otherwise. ;)

I've also found Absolute OpenBSD: Unix for the Practical Paranoid by Michael W. Lucas; and Brandon Palmer's Secure Architectures with OpenBSD to be worthwhile additions to the bookshelf. Highly recommended. :up:
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Tuxman on March 09, 2014, 01:51 PM
Yep, the host software and the guest software. Now how does this invalidate my thesis?

(Interestingly, you emphasize a different part every time.)

-- Mod Edit - Removed offensive content.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 02:02 PM
(Interestingly, you emphasize a different part every time. Like a woman.)
-Tuxman (March 09, 2014, 01:51 PM)

*YAWN*...

Now how about you contributing something of substance to the discussion by showing us how to install VirtualBox under OpenBSD since it was you who suggested it as the host OS?

I'm sure we're all anxious to benefit and learn from your expertise and experience.

Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Tuxman on March 09, 2014, 02:05 PM
*YAWN*... (now that's something of substance.)

I told ewemoa where to look by giving one of the possible answers to the question asked initially. If that's not enough, ewemoa might come back to it, right?
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Gwen7 on March 09, 2014, 02:09 PM
-40hz: dftt ;-)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 02:10 PM
@gwen - Thank you for the reminder. ;D
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Josh on March 09, 2014, 02:25 PM
Tuxman: Sexist comments will not be tolerated. Your post has been edited and the offensive comment removed.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 09, 2014, 09:13 PM
@ewemoa - see this (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/virtualization-host.html)

That said, the officially supported host OSes are as follows per virtualbox.org:

1.4. Supported host operating systems

Currently, VirtualBox runs on the following host operating systems:

    Windows hosts:

        Windows XP, all service packs (32-bit)

        Windows Server 2003 (32-bit)

        Windows Vista (32-bit and 64-bit[1]).

        Windows Server 2008 (32-bit and 64-bit)

        Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit)

        Windows 8 (32-bit and 64-bit)

        Windows Server 2012 (64-bit)

    Mac OS X hosts:[2]

        10.6 (Snow Leopard, 32-bit and 64-bit)

        10.7 (Lion, 32-bit and 64-bit)

        10.8 (Mountain Lion, 64-bit)

        10.9 (Mavericks, 64-bit)

    Intel hardware is required; please see Chapter 14, Known limitations also.

    Linux hosts (32-bit and 64-bit[3]). Among others, this includes:

        10.04 ("Lucid Lynx"), 10.10 ("Maverick Meerkat), 11.04 ("Natty Narwhal"), 11.10 ("Oneiric Oncelot"), 12.04 ("Precise Pangolin"), 12.10 ("Quantal Quetzal"), 13.04 ("Raring Ringtail"), 13.10 ("Saucy Salamander")

        Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 ("squeeze") and 7.0 ("wheezy")

        Oracle Enterprise Linux 5, Oracle Linux 6

        Redhat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6

        Fedora Core 6 to 19

        Gentoo Linux

        openSUSE 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 12.1, 12.2

        Mandriva 2010 and 2011

    It should be possible to use VirtualBox on most systems based on Linux kernel 2.6 or 3.x using either the VirtualBox installer or by doing a manual installation; see Section 2.3, “Installing on Linux hosts”. However, the formally tested and supported Linux distributions are those for which we offer a dedicated package.

    Note that starting with VirtualBox 2.1, Linux 2.4-based host operating systems are no longer supported.

    Solaris hosts (64-bit only) are supported with the restrictions listed in Chapter 14, Known limitations:

        Solaris 11 including Solaris 11 Express

        Solaris 10 (u8 and higher)

Note that the above list is informal. Oracle support for customers who have a support contract is limited to a subset of the listed host operating systems. Also, any feature which is marked as experimental is not supported. Feedback and suggestions about such features are welcome.

 8)

Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Tuxman on March 10, 2014, 01:00 AM
Mods forget to edit quotes. Hmm.

Above list is incomplete, given that (obviously) a couple of BSDs and derivatives work as a host too.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 10, 2014, 12:37 PM
@ewemoa - I guess it's a wrap now that you apparently have a working solution with either Debian or Manjaro. Let us know how it works out for you, and which you prefer, when you get a chance. 

Cheers!:Thmbsup:

Kirk out! ;D
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 10, 2014, 05:38 PM
Thanks to all for participating.

I'm still considering whether to test out the various BSDs -- it may have been more than a decade since my last serious use of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD (and now there appear to be others...) :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 10, 2014, 07:42 PM
^Why not give Solaris (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris11/overview/index.html) a shot while you're at it. That way you can keep it all in the family! :P ;D
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 10, 2014, 08:06 PM
Mmm...as an ex-Sun OS 4.1.x user, I was never fond of Solaris...but may be things have changed ;)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 10, 2014, 08:13 PM
^Nope! They really haven't.  ;D  Please don't take my previous 'suggestion' as anything but a joke. (Life's too short for things like Solaris. 8) )

The only thing I can think of that was worse was Novell's UnixWare. Talk about a study in aggravation...
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on March 11, 2014, 08:23 PM
Ah, how could I have missed the two emoticons!  Seven plus or minus two I guess :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on March 11, 2014, 08:47 PM
^Don't be too hard on yourself. In my case, it's been more like "two plus or minus one" lately.  ;)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 22, 2014, 04:21 AM
A further option appears to be to use Knoppix -- version 7.2 appears to come with a relatively recent version of VirtualBox (something in the 4.2.x series).

FWIW, I tried the following instructions for getting Knoppix on a USB stick with some success:

  http://www.wgdd.de/2013/08/create-knoppix-usb-boot-stick-from.html
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 22, 2014, 06:08 AM
A further option appears to be to use Knoppix -- version 7.2 appears to come with a relatively recent version of VirtualBox (something in the 4.2.x series).

FWIW, I tried the following instructions for getting Knoppix on a USB stick with some success:

  http://www.wgdd.de/2013/08/create-knoppix-usb-boot-stick-from.html
-ewemoa (May 22, 2014, 04:21 AM)

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]  Thank you ewemoa! :)

Very nice! Normally I'd just use USB Image Writer or something similar. But it's always good to know a command line way to do something just in case the PC you're using doesn't have all you favorite tools installed.

I wasn't aware of that isohybrid command.

Learn something new almost every day when you're using Linux! :Thmbsup:
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 22, 2014, 07:06 AM
Very nice! Normally I'd just use USB Image Writer or something similar. But it's always good to know a command line way to do something just in case the PC you're using doesn't have all you favorite tools installed.
-40hz (May 22, 2014, 06:08 AM)

Indeed!  I tried just using dd with the iso image first without success -- not sure why that works for some things and not others.

I wasn't aware of that isohybrid command.

It was new to me too.  FWIW, on Gentoo I found it in the syslinux package.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 22, 2014, 09:16 AM
FWIW, on Gentoo I found it in the syslinux package.
-ewemoa (May 22, 2014, 07:06 AM)

Yes indeed. It's in Mint too, although I've heard it's not included in every distro's version of the syslinux package. Don't know why.

Looks like it's something worth looking into a little more too. Come see:

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

Huh! Build bootable EFI image??? Hmm...definitely want to play with this soon - with the verbose switch enabled. Like Tom Waite said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mKkGugvoZY): "What's he building in there? What's he building in there...." 8) ;) ;D
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 22, 2014, 09:11 PM
Some interesting related bits at (search for isohybrid):

  http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/4957.html

As a side note:

  https://www.sabayon.org/article/uefi-and-uefi-secureboot-linux-nightmare-over
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: mateek on May 23, 2014, 06:22 PM
@ewemoa - Thanks for inspiring me to give your steps a shot with the debian net-install. 
1. Boot from iso-on-USB (dd-ed to USB memory)
2. Run the text installer and at the tasksel step unselect everything
3. After rebooting, install the sudo package and add the non-root user to the sudo group (then relogin)
4. Tell apt-get to install the virtualbox and xinit packages and accept the installation of the additional packages
5. Add the non-root user to the vboxusers group
6. Reboot for the VirtualBox modules to load (modprobe might work instead)
7. Log in and use startx to start X
8. From an xterm, start VirtualBox
9. Test run a guest OS
I've never seen it, but somebody ought to host a forum just for installs with nothing installed and devoted to one job as you proposed.  I knew what I was getting into, and I've run into a full dead-end in my startx, but I've learned a TON, and recalled a TON.  I hadn't done much with linux command-line in about five years, and never had enough time to do very much with it anyway.  At first I couldn't do without sudo, and found I wasn't on the internet when I went to install it.  I'm very proud of my setting ifconfig (a new set of commands for me) manually for all the specs and getting eth0 up running on startup.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 23, 2014, 10:50 PM
For imaging, Clonezilla and DD are what I use. DD mostly if it's just for me. Clonezilla for clients and anybody else. Clonezilla can also install GRUB so that's a big plus when performing a disaster recovery. Clonezilla also has some nice features for use with Windows-based systems. (Check out their website for details.) And it's now UEFI (or 'URFU' as I like to think of it) bootable.  So if you straddle multiple OSes, having one tool to learn and standardize on is really nice too.
-40hz (March 09, 2014, 08:48 AM)

I tried version 2.2.3-10 to clone with some success -- the first time through I encountered a lot of fast-scrolling text when checking on progress (the resulting HDD seemed fine though).  Since the cloned results was for testing purposes, went ahead and used it.  Seemed ok for the most part.  An unintentional trashing of the backup (likely pilot errror) provided an opportunity for a second use -- this time no weirdness was encountered :)

Thanks for the suggestion!
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 23, 2014, 10:55 PM
...steps a shot with the debian net-install.
-mateek (May 23, 2014, 06:22 PM)

He he -- I'm about to try to use them again -- nice to have notes to consult ;)

I knew what I was getting into, and I've run into a full dead-end in my startx, but I've learned a TON, and recalled a TON.  I hadn't done much with linux command-line in about five years, and never had enough time to do very much with it anyway.  At first I couldn't do without sudo, and found I wasn't on the internet when I went to install it.  I'm very proud of my setting ifconfig (a new set of commands for me) manually for all the specs and getting eth0 up running on startup.

I get (what I imagine are) similar feelings when trying to follow the instructions to install Gentoo or Arch!
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 24, 2014, 06:29 AM
I get (what I imagine are) similar feelings when trying to follow the instructions to install Gentoo or Arch!
-ewemoa (May 23, 2014, 10:55 PM)

For me, at least the Arch install was mainstream enough that it felt comprehensible and somewhat familiar. (The excellent docs helped a lot too!) A stage-3 Gentoo install, on the other hand, will probably always look and feel weird to me.  :huh:

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Tuxman on May 24, 2014, 07:32 AM
http://bash.org/?464385
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: mateek on May 24, 2014, 07:03 PM
He he -- I'm about to try to use them again -- nice to have notes to consult
That must be contagious.  This round I did the net-install of Debian non-advanced, and then did without sudo.  I had to install gdm3 for my startx, but now all is working otherwise perfectly from your steps.  I ruined my first try by uninstalling too much after adding the Desktop Environment.  My startx would freeze with only a cursor on a black screen, but I wasn't going to tackle those forums.  I'd almost be better off attempting Gentoo.  Thanks ewemao.

(https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/esmileys/gen3/4Medium/TFR1EA.gif) @Tuxman Thanks for the head's up!

Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 25, 2014, 01:02 AM
For me, at least the Arch install was mainstream enough that it felt comprehensible and somewhat familiar. (The excellent docs helped a lot too!)
-40hz (May 24, 2014, 06:29 AM)

I often find that Arch docs are more helpful than other things I encounter -- my impression is that they tend to have just enough but not too much.

It may just be my background, but I found the Gentoo installation procedure to be more familiar.  In any case, following the installation instructions for either seems to have the side effect of giving one quite a good start in learning how to look after one's system.

A stage-3 Gentoo install, on the other hand, will probably always look and feel weird to me.  :huh:

When was the last time you tried?  I think I originally tried Gentoo 7 or 8 years ago (remember stage 1 and 2?) with much less powerful hardware and this time around it definitely felt much easier.  One thing that seems to help for both distributions is knowing what you can ignore in the instructions -- as the quote Tuxman posted demonstrates, depending on one's specifics, what steps one follows may not be too much.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 25, 2014, 01:11 AM
In the meantime don't neglect to create a disk image backup of the install. It will easily fit on a DVD or a modest USB key too.
-40hz (March 09, 2014, 06:57 AM)

Tried this out using dd and partclone for comparison.

For dd, I shrank the partition before gzipping.  The result was about 1.7 GB.
For partclone, I tried gzipping with and without shrinking.  In either case the result was about 500 MB.

dd's result is certainly bigger, but access to its contents seems a simple "mount -o loop" away, whereas partclone seems more involved (e.g. partclone-utils (http://www.idealworldinc.com/partclone-utils/) or restoring the image to a file before mounting)...
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 25, 2014, 01:14 AM
I ruined my first try by uninstalling too much after adding the Desktop Environment.
-mateek (May 24, 2014, 07:03 PM)

Yes, the remove pieces bit-by-bit approach has this sort of risk in addition to ending up with cruft -- building up from less seems to work out better for me.

In any case, good to hear things are working for you :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 25, 2014, 03:46 AM
For making the environment a bit easier to use for pointing and clicking, tried the following additions:

apt-get install xfce4 # relatively light-weight desktop environment
apt-get install slim   # graphical display manager
apt-get install wicd   # contains gui for configuring wired and wireless network

df shows disk usage to be about 1.7 GB now.


Also disabled IPV6 by appropriately adding ipv6.disable=1 to the GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX line in /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.


separation of system from data...
Hmm, if I pick up the wireless usb module mentioned in:

  https://www.fsf.org/news/tehnoetic-wireless-usb-adapter-now-fsf-certified-to-respect-your-freedom

may be I can remove the internal wireless module and put some small form factor small capacity SATA SSD in to put this system on...

Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 25, 2014, 06:09 AM
When was the last time you tried?  I think I originally tried Gentoo 7 or 8 years ago (remember stage 1 and 2?) with much less powerful hardware and this time around it definitely felt much easier.
-ewemoa (May 25, 2014, 01:02 AM)

According to my logbook I go back to the summer of 2003 with Gentoo when I did my first install of it. And I did do a stage-1 install apparently. And no, I don't remember it all that much - but I have about 75 pages worth of notes on it from when I did! ;D

I do recall it was really interesting. But from the number of times I wrote "bloody hell!" in my notes, I apparently didn't consider it "fun" in the usual sense of the word. I remember how annoying it was since I had been using Linux for quite a while before Gentoo came out. (My first Linux foray was Slackware, which I installed for the first time in late-93/early-94 - at which point I decided this Nix stuff was for me! Been hooked ever since.) Gentoo was like starting over.

Every so often I think about trying Gentoo again. But like the dog up above, my very next thought is "what for?" So many distros...so little time y'know? And my main areas of interest don't revolve around the standard desktop environment anyway.

Arch I do like and will continue to use because it's so easy to craft a custom environment owing to how very little it assumes - or does for you.

Gentoo is interesting, and I applaud them for doing something different. And I really like what they did with portage. Borrowing from ports was a smart move on their part. I only wish that had become the dominant installation method for Linux software. Arch apparently felt that way too when they designed pacman. Portage certainly would have save a huge amount of grief in the early days - although those installation hassles are almost completely a thing of the past with today's maintainers and repositories.

The apt/yum/RPM triad works well enough. I'm less happy with the app store and ppa approaches introduced by Ubuntu that some other distros are now starting to look at. But since I'm not about to do my own fork, I guess I can learn to live and work with it. Especially since I built a career on learning to live and work with whatever Microsoft doles out. When in Rome..."think toga" as the saying goes.

 :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 25, 2014, 09:31 AM
Every so often I think about trying Gentoo again. But like the dog up above, my very next thought is "what for?"
-40hz (May 25, 2014, 06:09 AM)

I thought so too the last time I considered Gentoo -- but the recent turn of events with systemd finally convinced me that I'd better try again.

I didn't know about their overlay system until this time around, and I'm finding it to my liking.  I much prefer it to AUR which feels more like its existence is "tolerated".

I didn't get the hang of USE flags before, but it's starting to make more sense.

Perhaps I'll have Funtoo to look forward to before long ;)  (On a side note, if only Nixos hadn't gone the systemd way...a shame.)

Especially since I built a career on learning to live and work with whatever Microsoft doles out. When in Rome..."think toga" as the saying goes.

You will survive I reckon :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 25, 2014, 02:11 PM
I didn't know about their overlay system until this time around, and I'm finding it to my liking.
-ewemoa (May 25, 2014, 09:31 AM)

Wasn't aware of it either. Just looked it up and it appears to be a pretty smart way to do things. But Gentoo always was a little smarter about that sort of thing than most, wasn't it? Bloody! Now I'm getting the G-bug again. Why oh why did I have to read that? Why??? :-\

I didn't get the hang of USE flags before, but it's starting to make more sense.

USE. It's a lovely thing. But not all that essential to the average deployment. For desktops, it makes less sense since you'd need to check the dependencies of each app you'd want to install, either with emerge or run that package query utility (I forget what they tool use to do that) if you deviate from the default set of 'includes' as I tend to think of them. And since you'll be adding apps from time to time it's probably best to just accept the default USE statement which handles almost anything a desktop user would need to have available.

For crafting bespoke servers or appliances however, USE flags are the bees knees! :greenclp: Maybe even a little bit sexier(?) :mrgreen: a way to do it than building your server up from zero as you (mostly) would with Arch. Great for security - but without the challenges of using OpenBSD  :stars:- or the headaches of modding your kernal with Selinux. :wallbash:

At least that's how I see it.

P.S. I'm downloading the amd64-minimal ISO as we speak. I need this?  (Like I said earlier: Bloody! >:( )

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 25, 2014, 09:55 PM
He he -- wishing you the best this time around :Thmbsup:


BTW, here are some handy things I picked up this time around (but perhaps they are already familiar...):

Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 26, 2014, 07:44 AM
(but perhaps they are already familiar...):

-ewemoa (May 25, 2014, 09:55 PM)

Nothing is familiar because it's been so long  ;D - so thanks for that info.  :Thmbsup:

Oh yeah, that utility for dependency checking I was trying to remember earlier is called equery (http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Equery). It's part of gentoolkit.

user $ equery

Gentoo package query tool
Usage: equery [global-options] module-name [module-options]

modules (short name)
 (b)elongs               list what package FILES belong to
 (c)hanges               list changelog entries for ATOM
 chec(k)                 verify checksums and timestamps for PKG
 (d)epends               list all packages directly depending on ATOM
 dep(g)raph              display a tree of all dependencies for PKG
 (f)iles                 list all files installed by PKG
 h(a)s                   list all packages for matching ENVIRONMENT data stored in /var/db/pkg
 (h)asuse                list all packages that have USE flag
 ke(y)words              display keywords for specified PKG
 (l)ist                  list package matching PKG
 (m)eta                  display metadata about PKG
 (s)ize                  display total size of all files owned by PKG
 (u)ses                  display USE flags for PKG
 (w)hich                 print full path to ebuild for PKG

 8)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 26, 2014, 08:03 AM
Oh yeah, that utility for dependency checking I was trying to remember earlier is called equery (http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Equery). It's part of gentoolkit.
-40hz (May 26, 2014, 07:44 AM)

I've been using the list and files modules for equery but didn't know about the others.  Thanks!
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 26, 2014, 06:23 PM
Chunking through Gentoo's 100-page handbook. My how this distro has matured since the last time I looked at it! Some really nice stuff going down in their camp - including OpenRC and not systemd. That's enough to make me perk up since I always like to hedge my bet with Linux.

This is good stuff...

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

Yup! I definitely feel a stage-3 coming on... 8)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 26, 2014, 07:41 PM
including OpenRC and not systemd
-40hz (May 26, 2014, 06:23 PM)

:Thmbsup:
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on May 28, 2014, 12:01 PM
@ewemoa - Ok...just spent a few days messing with Gentoo and not doing a bunch of other stuff I should have been doing... ;D

Couple of things:

On a new PC with a fast chip and plenty of RAM, it installs, sets up, and runs beautifully.

Docs are very well done. Anybody with some Linux experience should have no trouble following or understanding what's being said. In the event you don't understand something, just a few minutes playing with the feature or command in question is enough to get you over the hump.

However, after a short while, all the conclusions I formed (and forgot) years ago about why Gentoo isn't (and won't ever become) a mainstream approach to 'doing Linux' came flooding back to me. In a nutshell: It's a learning or 'science-faire' distro. Great for learning about how things actually work; great for examining some genuinely unique ideas for how to do a distro; great for producing a sleek one-off installation for personal use. But lousy for mass deployment, or in an institutional setting. Because its "compile as needed" design is too time consuming, and its rolling release model is a potential support quagmire once you go beyond your own personal machine. For multiple desktops, it would be a challenge. For production servers, it would be a nightmare - and likely a career threatening environment to be in as well.

So...I'm removing "Genny" from my main test machine and repurposing the drive it's currently installed on.

But...I have a spare 32-bit Compaq laptop with a 20Gb hard drive in it that's gathering dust in the closet. In the next day or two, it will become a newly fledged Gentoo bird. Why? Because Gentoo is so damn much fun to ditz around with! Maybe I still don't have any practical use for Gentoo. But I am having a huge amount of fun with it.

And that's more than I can say for most of what I'm using.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

Reason enough to keep it, I'd say. :Thmbsup:

Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 30, 2014, 06:21 AM
Because its "compile as needed" design is too time consuming,
-40hz (May 28, 2014, 12:01 PM)

I felt this during the process of setting the machine up initially -- but not so much on a day-to-day basis now.

and its rolling release model is a potential support quagmire once you go beyond your own personal machine. For multiple desktops, it would be a challenge. For production servers, it would be a nightmare - and likely a career threatening environment to be in as well.

It certainly is more work to compile for each machine -- I don't know what Sabayon did, but IIUC they are based on Gentoo and have binary packages...may be they decided to choose some default USE flags?


BTW, I'm going to try using that nearly-bare-Debian-with-VirtualBox set up as my host OS and install Gentoo Prefix (https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/) for additional software (perhaps I'll also try Nix and/or Guix).
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on May 31, 2014, 01:01 AM
BTW, I'm going to try using that nearly-bare-Debian-with-VirtualBox set up as my host OS and install Gentoo Prefix (https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/) for additional software (perhaps I'll also try Nix and/or Guix).
-ewemoa (May 30, 2014, 06:21 AM)

I was informed on the #gentoo-prefix channel that Debian is not currently supported :(  But rumor has it that this might start working at some point in the future...

In the mean time had some success installing the Nix package manager (http://nixos.org/nix/about.html).  One benefit of having this on the somewhat minimal system is that packages for the purpose of running the underlying system (and providing VM support) can be kept separate from other things (such as web browsers, video players, etc.).
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on June 02, 2014, 03:59 AM
On a related note, I had luck installing and running VirtualBox via the live media for Linux Mint 17 Cinammon -- now if they'd just bundle it or make remastering more practical again...
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on June 02, 2014, 09:13 AM
or make remastering more practical again...
-ewemoa (June 02, 2014, 03:59 AM)

Last I heard mintconstructor still works. You can find copies too if you Google. Haven't tried it with 17 (or 16 if truth be told) so I don't know if it is still reliable, I wouldn't put it past them to change some tiny detail in Qiana so it didn't. Clement was pretty miffed to begin with. And the brat-slap he got back from the larger Mint community about yanking mintconstructor did little to dispel his mood.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on June 02, 2014, 09:19 PM
Thanks for the info about mintconstructor.

I'm currently trying to create a custom version of SystemRescueCD, but it's a fair bit more involved than what I'll want to do on an ongoing basis.  There appears to be support for a backingstore though:

  http://www.sysresccd.org/news/2008/06/29/creating-a-backing-store-to-keep-your-modifications-in-sysresccd/ (http://www.sysresccd.org/news/2008/06/29/creating-a-backing-store-to-keep-your-modifications-in-sysresccd/)

Hmm...may be I should look for something like that for LM...I end up using USB memory of some sort anyway for speed reasons...

Looks like there is:

  http://tuxtweaks.com/2014/03/create-linux-mint-persistent-live-usb/ (http://tuxtweaks.com/2014/03/create-linux-mint-persistent-live-usb/)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: 40hz on June 02, 2014, 09:32 PM
I've heard from some that Ubu's remastering tool (UCK) works just fine with Mint.

Don't know how true that is - or how well it does if it does. Here's the most recent how-to (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCDCustomization) I could find for Ubuntu remastering in case you want to take a look.

 8)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on June 04, 2014, 01:19 AM
I've heard from some that Ubu's remastering tool (UCK) works just fine with Mint.
-40hz (June 02, 2014, 09:32 PM)

Thanks!  I'll give the GUI (looks like uck-gui) a try -- may be if I run into problems the HOWTO you mentioned will come in handy.


The following helped to give an overall sense of the process involved in using UCK:

  http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/739139-roll-your-own-customized-ubuntu-with-uck (http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/739139-roll-your-own-customized-ubuntu-with-uck)
  http://www.geekyprojects.com/ubuntu/build-your-own-custom-ubuntu-livecd/ (http://www.geekyprojects.com/ubuntu/build-your-own-custom-ubuntu-livecd/)

It looks like Ubuntu's version of tasksel has a "Virtual Machine Host" option -- I just compared the sources of Debian's (version 3.14.1) and Ubuntu's (2.73ubuntu26), and I don't see such an option in the former.  Anyone tried this?

I didn't try it, but rather:


I then worked on transferring the iso to an appropriate location.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on June 04, 2014, 03:10 AM
In the process of transferring the customized media to SDHC -- hope to boot from it soon.


On a side note, tried the persistence feature of LM (Ubuntu actually I guess) to add VirtualBox, but may be it was because of the USB set up I have...it worked but was intolerably slow...For reference, below are the instructions I adapted:

  http://tuxtweaks.com/2014/03/create-linux-mint-persistent-live-usb/ (http://tuxtweaks.com/2014/03/create-linux-mint-persistent-live-usb/)


Booted customized "CD" (> 1 GB, USB media) ok, and had some success with running VirtualBox.  ATM, speed seems better than when using LM + persistence.

BTW, as part of the customization, I chose to delete some "Windows" related stuff -- the resulting iso is about 150 MB smaller than the original iso ;)  May be if I work at removing other things I can fit the result on a CD...
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on July 18, 2014, 07:26 PM
Have since put together a "relatively minimal VirtualBox host" setup using NixOS.

The installation process goes something like:


Except for the specifics of the description, details can be found at:

  http://nixos.org/nixos/manual/#sec-installation (http://nixos.org/nixos/manual/#sec-installation)

NixOS still has some rough spots for sure, but it seems quite promising.


Attached should be a gzipped tarball of a sample description (the 2 files in the resulting directory should live under /mnt/etc/nixos when installing).  This is for a machine with a single storage device (sda) with 2 partitions, sda1 for root and sda2 for swap.  The setup includes XFCE and VirtualBox.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on October 20, 2015, 08:00 AM
Status update: have been using NixOS for over a year now, has been quite good, though took quite a while to get used to.

Also tried Guix -- a bit more to my liking (based on pieces of NixOS), but still has a ways to go.

Tried Manjaro again (thanks to phitsc) -- the brief experience I had with the Fluxbox 15.10 edition this time has been nice so far.

Wondering whether to try out Qubes -- this appears to be a focused effort to carry out an idea of isolating execution of programs (perhaps among other things).  Anyone else try this already?
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: MilesAhead on October 20, 2015, 10:43 AM
Status update: have been using NixOS for over a year now, has been quite good, though took quite a while to get used to.

Also tried Guix -- a bit more to my liking (based on pieces of NixOS), but still has a ways to go.

Tried Manjaro again (thanks to phitsc) -- the brief experience I had with the Fluxbox 15.10 edition this time has been nice so far.

Wondering whether to try out Qubes -- this appears to be a focused effort to carry out an idea of isolating execution of programs (perhaps among other things).  Anyone else try this already?
-ewemoa (October 20, 2015, 08:00 AM)

I have noticed Qemu pop up here and there over the years.  Do you have any experience with it?
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on October 20, 2015, 07:49 PM
I do, but not with Qemu running under Windows.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Deozaan on October 20, 2015, 09:20 PM
I want to set up Xen (or similar hypervisor) and run Windows and Linux under it. How crazy am I?

Is it feasible for someone like me who needs relatively high performance for (Windows) games? Or is that not really feasible since (IIUC) Windows doesn't work with paravirtualization (PV) and needs to be installed as Full Virtualization, aka Hardware-assisted virtualization (HVM) (http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Overview#Host_and_Guest_Install), which slows things down due to emulation?
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on October 20, 2015, 11:53 PM
I've wanted to try Xen as well for some time, but some how things never quite worked out.

I don't really have good answers to your questions, but perhaps you might find Qubes to be of interest.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Deozaan on October 21, 2015, 12:35 AM
This Qubes (https://www.qubes-os.org/)?
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on October 21, 2015, 01:14 AM
Yes :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Deozaan on October 21, 2015, 12:10 PM
perhaps you might find Qubes to be of interest.
-ewemoa (October 20, 2015, 11:53 PM)

It looks like Qubes also uses Xen, and therefore Windows has the same problem on Qubes. Namely, it has to emulate the hardware and therefore GPU intensive things such as games won't work very well.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on October 21, 2015, 04:53 PM
Yes, AFAIU, it also uses Xen so your concern seems valid.

I wonder what the cost of verifying is? :)  (Specifically, that the games you are interested in really don't perform as well as you'd like.)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Deozaan on October 21, 2015, 08:30 PM
My understanding is that it would be like running Windows in a VirtualBox VM (or any VM), where the guest OS doesn't get direct access to the GPU so many video-intensive things would be slow or non-functional. Especially programs which try to grab fullscreen access.

I suppose I could try it out on real hardware, perhaps starting with my netbook. Though that device doesn't run much of anything smoothly, so I'm not sure it would give me any clear indication on how performance would suffer running under Qubes. I suppose it would give me experience and proof that I can actually get it set up and running, and might even answer the question if games would even run at all in such a setup.

But I don't think I'm ready or willing to try such an experience on my main, daily, productivity machine. Right now it seems very unlikely that it will pay off.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on October 22, 2015, 07:14 PM
Perhaps it's not worth your time -- I think Qubes is likely to be around for a while though, so may be there'll be other reasons to try it in the future :)
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Deozaan on October 31, 2015, 06:53 PM
Just a few days after we were talking about Xen, I saw this guide to installing Xen on an Odroid XU4 (http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=G143452239825):

http://odroid.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=en:xu4_xen

I don't have a XU4, but it's still pretty cool nonetheless.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on October 31, 2015, 07:40 PM
Didn't know there was some kind of ARM support for Xen.  Sounds neat!

  http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_ARM_with_Virtualization_Extensions_whitepaper


Also came across:

  http://xhypervisor.org/

via:

  https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=357354#p357354
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: ewemoa on November 03, 2015, 06:27 PM
Put forth some effort regarding Qubes.

No real success at booting -- tried on two notebooks.  Also tried their alpha Live USB media.

Might try on a desktop at some point.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Edvard on November 03, 2015, 07:25 PM
@Deozaan: I've found that in many cases, Wine runs Windows games better than Virtualbox.  With Wine, at least you have access to the GPU (not perfect all the time, but it's mostly there).  I can run Trackmania Nations Forever at good-to-acceptable frame rates, where doing the same on a VirtualBox instance of XP was just short of painful.  If that's all you're looking for, give it a go, but for most mundane 'This-is-a-job-for-Windows' tasks, VirtualBox has served me just fine.  I've also tried Qemu, and it works quite well, but you really have to be a bit of a wizard with the command-line options to get the best performance out of it.
Title: Re: *NIX: Relatively Minimal Host OS for VirtualBox Use
Post by: Deozaan on August 26, 2016, 02:53 PM
My understanding is that it would be like running Windows in a VirtualBox VM (or any VM), where the guest OS doesn't get direct access to the GPU so many video-intensive things would be slow or non-functional. Especially programs which try to grab fullscreen access [such as games].
-Deozaan (October 21, 2015, 08:30 PM)

I have some new (to me) evidence to suggest that using Windows as a guest OS actually is feasible, with near-native performance.

Here's a post from Sep 2012: HOW-TO make dual-boot obsolete using XEN VGA passthrough (https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=231&t=112013)
Here's one from Dec 2015: HOW-TO make dual-boot obsolete using kvm VGA passthrough (https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=231&t=212692)

So I may be looking into this topic again soon(ish). :)