We recently got a new Windows Server machine at work and I wanted to install an Ubuntu VM within it. After a few tries, I managed to install everyt...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
You can save a lot of time and headache if you just use the Windows Subsystem for Linux to run Ubuntu instead of wasting resources with that VirtualBox thing. Admittedly, I don't know whether it has found its way into the Windows Server editions just yet. Has it?
Wasting resources isn't much of a concern when you have 1-3 people using 384GB RAM, 4TB SSD storage and two Xeon Gold 6154 processors. I'd rather have a full Linux distro than have to deal with whatever limitations come along with WSL. It's definitely something to look into, though.
We have Windows Server 2016 and I think it's on there.
And this is exactly why text editors and web browsers happily clog half of your RAM each: people thinking that "we have enough resources anyway". Just because you have enough space, you still should not waste even one byte of it. We cannot continue to throw more hardware at our software every year just because the developers refuse to write efficient code. - Well, we could, but we really should not want to do that.
Which ones?
While I agree generally with your sentiment, I'd still prefer a full distro over "reverse Wine". From Wiki:
Bien dit Andrew!