It is kind of expected for 3rd party virtualization products not to work when Hyper-V is enabled, after all it's a type 1 hypervisor (native, like Xen or ESXi) and not a type 2 one (hosted, like VirtualBox or VMware Workstation).
When it's enabled the whole OS goes through it, so virtualization extensions aren't exposed and since they're required for some of not all type 2 virtualization offerings they won't work. Nested virtualization can be tricky, but I think there are some solutions out there that implement it (either by exposing virtualization extensions or by virtualizing without hardware assistance (with the performance penalty it entails)).
However, as it was stated before, both VMware Workstation and VirtualBox can now work when Hyper-V is enabled and I'm sure their implementation will continue to improve (at least VMware's being a commercial product and all).
As for WSL2, I find it useful, a great improvement from what SUA used to be and a step into the right direction in regards to WSL (it has to be easier to maintain for sure). I'm still using MSYS2 when it comes to Windows, but I'll certainly give WSL2 a try soon. I hope they keep working on it.
It is expected for them to have issues because of the way it's implemented. Which makes the way it's been implemented bad for everyone, and the fact that e.g. Docker's default Windows installation depends on it pretty distasteful.
No, VirtualBox does not work in an acceptable way. I don't care about VMWare because it's not widespread, affordable, and manageable with vagrant and other such tools, so it may or may not work but it doesn't change my ability to use Hyper-V at all. No it will not keep getting better when Microsoft is actively working against that goal.
This is basically Microsoft trying to kill all other virtualization options in favor of Hyper-V - in a sensible world this should land Microsoft in yet another antitrust lawsuit.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
It is kind of expected for 3rd party virtualization products not to work when Hyper-V is enabled, after all it's a type 1 hypervisor (native, like Xen or ESXi) and not a type 2 one (hosted, like VirtualBox or VMware Workstation).
When it's enabled the whole OS goes through it, so virtualization extensions aren't exposed and since they're required for some of not all type 2 virtualization offerings they won't work. Nested virtualization can be tricky, but I think there are some solutions out there that implement it (either by exposing virtualization extensions or by virtualizing without hardware assistance (with the performance penalty it entails)).
However, as it was stated before, both VMware Workstation and VirtualBox can now work when Hyper-V is enabled and I'm sure their implementation will continue to improve (at least VMware's being a commercial product and all).
As for WSL2, I find it useful, a great improvement from what SUA used to be and a step into the right direction in regards to WSL (it has to be easier to maintain for sure). I'm still using MSYS2 when it comes to Windows, but I'll certainly give WSL2 a try soon. I hope they keep working on it.
It is expected for them to have issues because of the way it's implemented. Which makes the way it's been implemented bad for everyone, and the fact that e.g. Docker's default Windows installation depends on it pretty distasteful.
No, VirtualBox does not work in an acceptable way. I don't care about VMWare because it's not widespread, affordable, and manageable with
vagrantand other such tools, so it may or may not work but it doesn't change my ability to use Hyper-V at all. No it will not keep getting better when Microsoft is actively working against that goal.This is basically Microsoft trying to kill all other virtualization options in favor of Hyper-V - in a sensible world this should land Microsoft in yet another antitrust lawsuit.