Running a Virtual Linux Machine. Which is best, Hyper-v, or VMware? And Easiest.

[buster]

"To over simplify, Hyper-v turns the host AND The guest os(es) into virtual machines, The host os is a virtualized......"

My brain hurts.

[William]

"To over simplify, Hyper-v turns the host AND The guest os(es) into virtual machines, The host os is a virtualized......"

My brain hurts.

My brain hurts, too, because I didn't know that.  I used VirtualBox, VMware, and Hyper-V at work, and I've settled on Hyper-V.  It crashes the least.  From memory,

• Hyper-V allows you to access network only.  So, it crashes less.
• VMware allows you to access network, usb, file share.  So, it crashes more.
• VirtualBox allows you to access network, usb, com, file share.  So, it crashes most.

[buster]

" I used VirtualBox, VMware, and Hyper-V at work, and I've settled on Hyper-V.  It crashes the least."

My using of a virtual Linux is mild I'm sure compared to what you are doing William. I'm happy if I can communicate between host and virtual and transfer data. However, in all the years I've done this, none of them have ever crashed. I am using the older VMWare. Will have to try the newest free release, which is apparently a full commercial clone.

[Jason]

I can't remember Virtualbox or VMware Workstation crashing on me, either. Have you tried it on other hardware, William?