> Proxmox doesn't do the virtualisation, that's KVM. That's the hypervisor.

Proxmox has KVM as part of its kernel. You're deliberately ignoring this fact. I've already expressly stated that KVM is the specific part that does the virtualization multiple times and you keep pretending I'm not.

> I'm not sure why you find this so difficult to understand.

I'm not?

> Not sure what 'energy' you're going on about, if you reread this you might realise you're the one being a bit obtuse.

You went out of your way to nitpick a comment I made about the differences in how Proxmox and Qubes OS are being used to say "you're wrong" about a detail that was not only irrelevant to the conversation.

Proxmox, ESXi, etc. are conventionally considered hypervisors.

> You're also making up stuff I might potentially say, whilst also admitting I'm probably right, which says a lot about you imho.

No, you don't know how to read. Let me take you back to first grade for a second.

What I said was that there is some dispute in over if KVM being a part of the kernel that helps constitute an OS makes the OS the hypervisor. I literally gave a reference to this distinction as well, and conceded that if you want to be very technically accurate, that KVM is the hypervisor.

What I'm saying is that KVM is a core part of Proxmox that enables it to function as a hypervisor, and you are going to deep ends to ensure everyone knows that my claim is 100% verifiably wrong even though it's semantics.

> Maybe work from the things people say, not what you think they say in your head.

Let's take a step back. I said:

"proxmox is more traditionally used as the hypervisor for distributed applications... (barring differences in Xen and *KVM*)"

to which you said:

"Proxmox isn't a hypervisor (last time I checked!), it's a management plane to different hypervisors."

In other words - "you're fucking wrong, it doesn't include a hypervisor at all". Which is:

a) Not what I said. I said it is used as the hypervisor. You’re not fucking installing Virtualbox on it.
b) Intentionally ignoring the fact that I call out KVM in reference to it. What the hell?
c) Inaccurate.

Let’s break it apart.

> it's a management plane to different hypervisors.

Source? I haven't seen any capability of Proxmox to integrate with Xen, vmkernel, Hyper-V, XCP-ng, etc.

It deeply integrates with KVM (which you seem to never address, as if accepting this fact is akin to Voldemort to you.

> It's a management framework, it doesn't do virtualisation itself, it uses the libvirt framework.

Not true. From a developer themselves: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/how-hypervisors-like-proxm...

> I hope you find inner peace, but for reference, proxmox is a management layer using libvirt, which interacts with the hypervisor, KVM. Jeez...

Again, spreading lies.

I can do this all day with you. I don't think you're just wrong now, I think you're actively lying.

--

Or, you can stop being such a dick. I already gave you an out, which is that this specific topic is actively debated online - just like we are doing now. But instead, you went this route:

> whilst also admitting I'm probably right, which says a lot about you imho

So no, you're clearly a bad faith author. Imagine telling a VI Admin that ESXi is not the hypervisor.