Freebsd, Virtual OSs and GUI

Adam Vande More amvandemore at
Wed Oct 12 23:14:19 UTC 2011

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Jorge Biquez <jbiquez at>wrote:

It is better to install KDE or GNOME as the base GUI or it is better to have
> any other ? (I do not know what could be).

This is one of those ask a hundred different people get 100 different
answers.  I prefer KDE which would work well for you because both KDE and
VirtualBox are built on QT4, a rather large system.  KDE isn't really that
heavy though relatively speaking.  VirtualBox runs great for me and does all
you indicated.

> What do you think is the best option to save hardware resources and
> accomplish this task ? Something important is that this lab machine will be
> connected directly with the ISP (public IP's)  and I will need to connect
> remotely to control the server and the other OS's.

You will probably want a CPU and chipset that has hardware assist for
virtualization, and plenty of RAM for both host and guests.  Disk choice
should reflect your data capacity, redundancy, and speed needs.  A good
quality Intel NIC is always nice.

> If I do not need necessarily a GUI running with FreeBSD, what do you
> suggest to use?

You don't need a GUI, VirtualBox has a headless mode that handles it for

By the way the hardware I will use I guess it is enough since it is for
> testing only and I won't be connected remotely all the time. The machine is
> an "old" Pentium Core 2 Duo, 2GB of ram (its maximum) and a hard disk of
> 500gb, also it has an Nvdia card 256Mb (can use the one with the motherboard
> if that is a problem) The motherboard is an INtel one. It runs perectly
> FreeBSD using it in text mode. As a curios information something in the
> motherboard maybe is not compatible with UBuntu .

The hardware you mention likely doesn't have VT-d, and probably has VT-x
which is perfectly fine, because to my knowledge you can't use VT-d with
VirtualBox yet anyways.

Adam Vande More

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list