> With "cores to spare" in modern Moore's law scaling, I should be able to have several OSes seamlessly running at once, not the virtualbox stuff or other clunkiness, a much more seamless experience. There's a lot of hardware/CPU features to support it, but of course the OS vendors/distros have no prioritization to do something like that. It's also a fundamental failing of IoT.
No. The hardware features that allow running multiple OS's at once is what VirtualBox/QEMU/HyperV/Xen/etc. use, and those feature require a privileged OS to manage it.
The hardware does not support having multiple OS's manage the machine at once - even if they could be made to run, they'd step on each other and make hardware crash as they all try to configure it differently at the same time, and with them all in ring 0 they'd be able to arbitrarily compromise each other. Plus, you'd be annoyed that each of, say, 3 OS's could only use 1/3rd of all resources - 16 cores and 64 GB of RAM may seem like lot, but 5 cores and 21 GB of RAM does not.
It's a dumb idea. Just get a better OS, a better hypervisor, better "fastboot to other OS" features (say, 1-5 seconds "hibernate and resume other OS"), or another desktop.
No. The hardware features that allow running multiple OS's at once is what VirtualBox/QEMU/HyperV/Xen/etc. use, and those feature require a privileged OS to manage it.
The hardware does not support having multiple OS's manage the machine at once - even if they could be made to run, they'd step on each other and make hardware crash as they all try to configure it differently at the same time, and with them all in ring 0 they'd be able to arbitrarily compromise each other. Plus, you'd be annoyed that each of, say, 3 OS's could only use 1/3rd of all resources - 16 cores and 64 GB of RAM may seem like lot, but 5 cores and 21 GB of RAM does not.
It's a dumb idea. Just get a better OS, a better hypervisor, better "fastboot to other OS" features (say, 1-5 seconds "hibernate and resume other OS"), or another desktop.