3 ms·
It sort of seems like a shame to throw out the entire approach and move to something vm-based when it was already working so well, but I guess if it improves bo
by resoluteteeth 8y ago
It sort of seems like a shame to throw out the entire approach and move to something vm-based when it was already working so well, but I guess if it improves both performance and compatibility it makes sense?
- topspin 8y agoThis started as "Bash On Windows," got embiggened to WSL and now we're finally where it probably should have started; a tightly integrated VM running a genuine Linux kernel. This also obviates some of the shade that has been thrown at Microsoft's effort because this is no longer a reimplementation of the Linux kernel. So both technical and political improvements. I have few complaints.
- earenndil 8y agoWhat's wrong with re-implementing the linux kernel? Why would people not like that?
- topspin 8y ago> What's wrong with re-implementing the linux kernel? I don't know that there is anything wrong with it. I do know there are those that don't care to see Microsoft rehosting the Linux ecosystem on a proprietary kernel and have seen WSL as more 'embrace, extend, extinguish' behavior. One imagines that view must moderate some given that Microsoft is now relying on the genuine GPL licensed kernel. I believe I've hit my daily weasel word limit.
- Analemma_ 8y agoI know what you mean, but it’s important to realize that kind of thinking is a sunk-cost fallacy. Based on the GitHub discussions about filesystem performance, it seems like they had really hit a wall and there was no other way to squeeze more performance out without a radical re-architecture.