3 ms·
Rewriting WSL to suddenly require a VM would be a HUGE leap backwards and I can't see that being the solution chosen. It doesn't make sense. Adding the approp
by naikrovek 8y ago
Rewriting WSL to suddenly require a VM would be a HUGE leap backwards and I can't see that being the solution chosen. It doesn't make sense.
Adding the appropriate things to WSL to make Docker for Windows no longer require the Moby VM, or to support Linux Docker within the WSL environment without modification, is an approach that makes much more sense to me.
- mattnewport 8y agoIt appears that is what they have done though: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/shipping-a-linux-kernel-with-windows/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/shipping-a-linux-...
- naikrovek 8y agoShow me where in that article it says that a VM is required. Am I interpreting you incorrectly?
- mattnewport 8y agoThis article was linked from another article which I guess is where I saw the VM info: > WSL 2 uses the latest and greatest in virtualization technology to run its Linux kernel inside of a lightweight utility virtual machine (VM). However, WSL 2 will NOT be a traditional VM experience. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/announcing-wsl-2/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/announcing-wsl-2/