This comment is totally alarmist, i've used hyper-v with a few linux ISO and had no problem booting, you just have to read some instructions carefully. e.g. Disable secure boot, Gen 1 vs Gen 2, etc...
Ended up in this thread on a related search on DB speed comparisons under Hyper-V and WSL2. And found it a bit misleading.
The Linux ISO-s have been working on Hyper-V since 2014 (Debian. Redhat. I've run Oracle DB on Oracle Linux on Hyper-V), the fact that you have to turn off secure boot is also well documented, and pretty much the first result in the google search for linux iso not booting on hyper-v gen 2 gives in a preview a solution on how to fix it (by turning off secure boot). Btw. the MacBook Pro has a nasty feature where the CPU has some virtualisation bits left in "UNDEFINED" state, and debugging that was definitely a challenge (really nice hardware though).
As for performance, I can't complain, it's performant enough to boot up a complete dev env with several clusters of elastic, rabbit etc. and the throughput numbers (even for rabbit running in java VM-s inside the Hyper-V container) are very ok. Also docker builds both from command line and VS (which has it's own build system built around Docker, should you want to use it for .NET core, is very fast). Even on laptop systems.
So all in all, running Linux on Hyper-V is reasonable and well working. I do understand the personal dislike of some specific systems, or vendors, that's fine, I personally just don't use them at that point, instead of complaining how bad they are, but that is a matter of personal taste. Though it would be good to not mix up facts and subjective opinions.
Well you say that, and then mix up facts and subjective opinions. I don't have an opinion about Hyper-V being bad. I've tested it and unfortunately found it to be very bad, while hoping it wouldn't be.
Performance of vmware and virtualbox with WSL2 enabled (aka. hyper-v) is just too poor. Running linux in virtualbox with VB 6.1.18 is slow, it's not unsably slow, thus someone can claim that "it works!", however, it's slower than without WSL2, slowing it down into uncomfortable level.
VMWare, well, commercial solution has also problems, with their latest version, which is claimed to be "hyper-v & WSL2" compatible: communities.vmware.com/t5/VMware-W...
Tried it also myself, and running windows 10 in vmware with WSL2 enabled, is too slow (with virtualbox comically slow, that's reason for trying out vmware); with either case, not usable (i.e. comparable to sticking needles under the fingernails).
Yes. reason for experimenting with wsl2 was attempt of trying to run docker in windows (and so far it seems that I've to abandon it due to these performance problems caused by hyper-v in vmware & virtualbox).
This comment is totally alarmist, i've used hyper-v with a few linux ISO and had no problem booting, you just have to read some instructions carefully. e.g. Disable secure boot, Gen 1 vs Gen 2, etc...
Yeah, so because a year later you tested a few ISOs and YOU ran into no issues nobody could ever have had any issues with it?
You just have to read some documentation that is likely nowhere to be found by mere mortals. Gotcha.
Even when it "works" Hyper-V is terribly slow compared to VMware Workstation or VirtualBox for e.g. Docker builds.
Ended up in this thread on a related search on DB speed comparisons under Hyper-V and WSL2. And found it a bit misleading.
The Linux ISO-s have been working on Hyper-V since 2014 (Debian. Redhat. I've run Oracle DB on Oracle Linux on Hyper-V), the fact that you have to turn off secure boot is also well documented, and pretty much the first result in the google search for linux iso not booting on hyper-v gen 2 gives in a preview a solution on how to fix it (by turning off secure boot). Btw. the MacBook Pro has a nasty feature where the CPU has some virtualisation bits left in "UNDEFINED" state, and debugging that was definitely a challenge (really nice hardware though).
As for performance, I can't complain, it's performant enough to boot up a complete dev env with several clusters of elastic, rabbit etc. and the throughput numbers (even for rabbit running in java VM-s inside the Hyper-V container) are very ok. Also docker builds both from command line and VS (which has it's own build system built around Docker, should you want to use it for .NET core, is very fast). Even on laptop systems.
So all in all, running Linux on Hyper-V is reasonable and well working. I do understand the personal dislike of some specific systems, or vendors, that's fine, I personally just don't use them at that point, instead of complaining how bad they are, but that is a matter of personal taste. Though it would be good to not mix up facts and subjective opinions.
Well you say that, and then mix up facts and subjective opinions. I don't have an opinion about Hyper-V being bad. I've tested it and unfortunately found it to be very bad, while hoping it wouldn't be.
Performance of vmware and virtualbox with WSL2 enabled (aka. hyper-v) is just too poor. Running linux in virtualbox with VB 6.1.18 is slow, it's not unsably slow, thus someone can claim that "it works!", however, it's slower than without WSL2, slowing it down into uncomfortable level.
VMWare, well, commercial solution has also problems, with their latest version, which is claimed to be "hyper-v & WSL2" compatible: communities.vmware.com/t5/VMware-W...
Tried it also myself, and running windows 10 in vmware with WSL2 enabled, is too slow (with virtualbox comically slow, that's reason for trying out vmware); with either case, not usable (i.e. comparable to sticking needles under the fingernails).
Yes. reason for experimenting with wsl2 was attempt of trying to run docker in windows (and so far it seems that I've to abandon it due to these performance problems caused by hyper-v in vmware & virtualbox).
I also tried Docker in Windows like that, and ended up with worse Docker performance than by running Docker in VMWare. So there's that too.