Is it worth moving completely to virtual machines in the context of a "home user"?

Question

Virtualization

Good afternoon!
The main question in the title, for example: there is a laptop with any distribution kit on the linux kernel, on which we will install kvm or virtualbox. And already on the virtual system we use everything, i.e. surfing, mail, internet banking, photoshop, etc. etc.
It is possible to divide into virtual machines - for banking, for surfing, etc.

Of the minuses, the battery runs out faster. Convenience is questionable.

PS Why is this done - for example, fewer problems with the host system from various software, Internet worms, scripts, etc.; ease of backup of virtual machines (if necessary), as well as the simplicity of their "maintenance".

Answer 1

qubes-os.org

Answer 2

Well, it's a question of how much time you are willing to spend on maintaining this fleet :-) Each system will use laptop resources, that is, they will actually have to be divided between several operating systems. Plus their software sets, their maintenance procedures (installing updates, for example), plus host OS maintenance. If you are not too lazy to mess around, or there is an opportunity to automate all this - well, you can install several systems. And backing up one machine is much easier than a bunch of virtual machines, and even, perhaps, with different operating systems inside.
If it's for safety's sake, I'd look towards sandboxes. I myself use, for example, Sandboxie.

Answer 3

fewer problems with the host system from various software, Internet worms, scripts, etc.;

The task is unsolvable. Virtualization does not save from this and is not intended for this at all.
Backup of the VMs themselves involves significant amounts of storage, because simple free software usually does not know how to dedupe, and without it, the bill can go to tens of terabytes.