3 ms·

Sorry for being dense but how is this better than running seamless window Linux under vmware? With that I can also access shared files, etc.

chrisper 10y ago
It's less overhead and better integrated into the system as a whole. After all a VM is still a separate entity in its own environment. WSL is jumping over the fence and runs Linux stuff in a Windows environment. Think of it the other way. Why would you use wine if you could just run Windows in a VM? :)
- kazinator 10y ago
  Why someone might use Wine is that it's free software. That's about it.
  - eriknstr 10y ago
    I think the point that parent commenter tried to make is actually that one might use Wine instead of VM because Wine has less overhead.
- rasz_pl 10y ago
  > less overhead is it really? last time I read tests WSL was slower than VMs
baq 10y ago
you don't pay for RAM that the VM doesn't use and don't have to deal with madness that is sharing files over sftp/smb/nfs/shared folders/etc.
- nailer 10y ago
  A smart VM will have ballooning to not throw away unused VM memory.
w0rd-driven 10y ago
I don't know if I would call it better or worse, it's more about preferred workflow. I'm typing this on a MBP and I have a fleet of VMs specifically because I'm tired of playing the platform game. I can configure a VM specific to an app's needs faster than hosing my host OS with a very specific configuration that may not match production environments. Even with version managers like rvm or nvm/n there is just a lot to get wrong. It may be faster or less resource intensive to not have to spin up a VM but I've been in .NET land with desktop apps and now various web platforms enough to prefer this workflow. For someone like me, this would be for personal usage versus job related activities but I do see the benefit of having the choice. I just hope I'm strong enough to resist the temptation because my personal win10 laptop is a graveyard of rails installer and a few other various barely-supported toys.
KirinDave 10y ago
Because it's a fraction of the resource cost, and shares resources better with the host system as well?

chrisper 10y ago

It's less overhead and better integrated into the system as a whole. After all a VM is still a separate entity in its own environment. WSL is jumping over the fence and runs Linux stuff in a Windows environment. Think of it the other way. Why would you use wine if you could just run Windows in a VM? :)

kazinator 10y ago
Why someone might use Wine is that it's free software. That's about it.
- eriknstr 10y ago
  I think the point that parent commenter tried to make is actually that one might use Wine instead of VM because Wine has less overhead.
rasz_pl 10y ago
> less overhead is it really? last time I read tests WSL was slower than VMs

baq 10y ago

you don't pay for RAM that the VM doesn't use and don't have to deal with madness that is sharing files over sftp/smb/nfs/shared folders/etc.

nailer 10y ago
A smart VM will have ballooning to not throw away unused VM memory.

w0rd-driven 10y ago

I don't know if I would call it better or worse, it's more about preferred workflow. I'm typing this on a MBP and I have a fleet of VMs specifically because I'm tired of playing the platform game. I can configure a VM specific to an app's needs faster than hosing my host OS with a very specific configuration that may not match production environments. Even with version managers like rvm or nvm/n there is just a lot to get wrong. It may be faster or less resource intensive to not have to spin up a VM but I've been in .NET land with desktop apps and now various web platforms enough to prefer this workflow. For someone like me, this would be for personal usage versus job related activities but I do see the benefit of having the choice. I just hope I'm strong enough to resist the temptation because my personal win10 laptop is a graveyard of rails installer and a few other various barely-supported toys.

KirinDave 10y ago

Because it's a fraction of the resource cost, and shares resources better with the host system as well?