5 ms·

It sure is nice for all the people who are stuck on Windows/prefer Windows but need access to Linux tools. But I'm not sure what this will do to Open Source in

It sure is nice for all the people who are stuck on Windows/prefer Windows but need access to Linux tools. But I'm not sure what this will do to Open Source in the long run. I don't think WSL users will care a lot about the ideals of the Free Software people and I'm not sure whether the Free Software people will love to maintain code for people who don't give a fuck. Or maybe it will expose more people to the idea and will provide a new entry point for new talents. At least Canonical is getting paid.

yingw787 7y ago
This isn't Lotus Notes. The nice thing about FOSS is there's a property-based guarantee over software development progress. The moment WSL goes embrace-extend-extinguish (and that's far from guaranteed to happen, given Microsoft's benign nature of late), Linux will just continue to do its own thing. It won't just stop existing. The code isn't going anywhere, and you can always host your own mirrors. And there's always BSD.
- rbanffy 7y ago
  > given Microsoft's benign nature of late The only reason their are being benign to open source is because it allows them to hedge their bets and leverage their good hardware support to gain share among people who wouldn't consider Windows a viable option. WSL's primary purpose is to prevent market loss to Linux and macOS. And yes, BSD (but we all know how likely that is to happen).
droopyEyelids 7y ago
I think you're asking the right question. We're definitely seeing microsoft Embracing and Extending gnu/linux here.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Yes, because Google is such a nice community example with ChromeOS and Android.
  - robocat 7y ago
    Sure, you can complain that Google haven’t given everything away for free. However the open source AOSP has been amazing - lots of innovation from individuals and other companies has occurred because they could start a project using AOSP. Also because Android is based on Linux, drivers have been released and improvements have happened to the kernel. Compare that to what you get from Apple with Mach (or iOS). It feels to me that you are complaining because someone gave you a free beer, but only half filled the glass.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      It feels more like rotten free beer actually.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Google isn't the topic right now.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Sure it is, because apparently they get support for doing stuff that Microsoft gets bashed for, like the way they manage their Linux changes, or their own Java dialect.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        That doesn't follow.
  - IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
    And Google is abandoning updates to chromebooks, just as they abandon their "beta" products.
justin66 7y ago
> But I'm not sure what this will do to Open Source in the long run. I don't think WSL users will care a lot about the ideals of the Free Software people and I'm not sure whether the Free Software people will love to maintain code for people who don't give a fuck. People who care about the ideals of the free software people have always been a genuine minority group. You might be using the terms interchangeably, but it's why the term "Open Source" exists.
- turbinerneiter 7y ago
  Maybe my history is off, but I always regarded OS as the business marketing arm of FS.
- rbanffy 7y ago
  > People who care about the ideals of the free software people have always been a genuine minority group. It'd be a lot different if, for instance, Oracle was able to actually kill MySQL.
MikusR 7y ago
With wsl Microsoft is trying to poach MacOS users. And Apple cares about open source about as much as Microsoft
bubblethink 7y ago
>At least Canonical is getting paid. WSL1 wasn't restricted to just Ubuntu. All the major distros were available. Canonical's cooperation is useful from a trademarks standpoint, but I don't see Canonical having any leverage in this arrangement.
squarefoot 7y ago
"But I'm not sure what this will do to Open Source in the long run." I don't know about Open Source as a concept/movement, however it will destroy Linux as we know it. More and more developers are already flocking to it (and VSC) for writing Linux software. All it needs is a killer library (Windows GUI bindings?) and/or extensions that could push developers into writing software that expects to be run under WSL instead of the real thing. It may seem stretched, but WSL is to Linux what WINE is to Windows; so how many of us could run Windows software under WINE without any Windows installed? WINE didn't damage Windows because there are simply too many native Windows installs compared to Linux users with WINE, but what about the other way around? Linux wouldn't stand a chance. Microsoft is slowly gaining full control of Linux, one developer at a time, and nobody seems to care.
- godzillabrennus 7y ago
  Linux runs on more servers than desktops. Can’t imagine the licensing for server editions of Windows will take off when Linux for servers is still FOSS. I think it’s great that more people are getting access to FOSS on Windows. I remember when Linux didn’t have a package manager and you had to install dependencies manually. Enabling Windows users a limited Linux experience should help encourage more Linux switchers.
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    "Enabling Windows users a limited Linux experience should help encourage more Linux switchers." I really wished this was the case, however I hardly imagine Microsoft execs discussing at meetings the introduction of WSL to encourage people to switch to Linux.
    - rbanffy 7y ago
      A "limited Linux experience" has been available to Windows users since Cygwin allowed us to have bash and gcc on a Windows machine. I used it a bit in the early 2000's and extensively in 2008-2009 when I was issued my first Windows laptop in ages. Before my laptop suffered a most regrettable accident that rendered the Windows partition inoperable and forced me to switch to Linux. When hardware virtualization became available and memory became more abundant, running Linux VMs was a no-brainer. WSL2 is faster, better integrated and closer to what a Linux environment is supposed to be.
Phylter 7y ago
I can't say how it'll effect everybody else or what the overall effect will be but I do use WSL quite a bit. I don't use Linux as my main desktop but I have been using Linux since '98 in some dual boot but mostly headless installs. For me it makes life much easier. All I want from Linux is the command line. Instead of having to fire up a VM or SSH into a remote box and transfer files I have access to them on my PC. Based on my experience it makes Linux more accessible to me. It doesn't really change the way I use Linux other than to give me more options. I can't imagine it being hurtful to Linux overall. Because of things like the Raspberry Pi and Android people are already in some ways getting familiar with Linux. Because of MacOS some people are getting familiar with Unix in general. If anything I think people will be like me in that WSL will simply make Linux more accessible.

yingw787 7y ago

This isn't Lotus Notes. The nice thing about FOSS is there's a property-based guarantee over software development progress. The moment WSL goes embrace-extend-extinguish (and that's far from guaranteed to happen, given Microsoft's benign nature of late), Linux will just continue to do its own thing. It won't just stop existing. The code isn't going anywhere, and you can always host your own mirrors. And there's always BSD.

rbanffy 7y ago
> given Microsoft's benign nature of late The only reason their are being benign to open source is because it allows them to hedge their bets and leverage their good hardware support to gain share among people who wouldn't consider Windows a viable option. WSL's primary purpose is to prevent market loss to Linux and macOS. And yes, BSD (but we all know how likely that is to happen).

droopyEyelids 7y ago

I think you're asking the right question. We're definitely seeing microsoft Embracing and Extending gnu/linux here.

pjmlp 7y ago
Yes, because Google is such a nice community example with ChromeOS and Android.
- robocat 7y ago
  Sure, you can complain that Google haven’t given everything away for free. However the open source AOSP has been amazing - lots of innovation from individuals and other companies has occurred because they could start a project using AOSP. Also because Android is based on Linux, drivers have been released and improvements have happened to the kernel. Compare that to what you get from Apple with Mach (or iOS). It feels to me that you are complaining because someone gave you a free beer, but only half filled the glass.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    It feels more like rotten free beer actually.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Google isn't the topic right now.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Sure it is, because apparently they get support for doing stuff that Microsoft gets bashed for, like the way they manage their Linux changes, or their own Java dialect.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      That doesn't follow.
- IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
  And Google is abandoning updates to chromebooks, just as they abandon their "beta" products.

justin66 7y ago

> But I'm not sure what this will do to Open Source in the long run. I don't think WSL users will care a lot about the ideals of the Free Software people and I'm not sure whether the Free Software people will love to maintain code for people who don't give a fuck. People who care about the ideals of the free software people have always been a genuine minority group. You might be using the terms interchangeably, but it's why the term "Open Source" exists.

turbinerneiter 7y ago
Maybe my history is off, but I always regarded OS as the business marketing arm of FS.
rbanffy 7y ago
> People who care about the ideals of the free software people have always been a genuine minority group. It'd be a lot different if, for instance, Oracle was able to actually kill MySQL.

MikusR 7y ago

With wsl Microsoft is trying to poach MacOS users. And Apple cares about open source about as much as Microsoft

bubblethink 7y ago

>At least Canonical is getting paid. WSL1 wasn't restricted to just Ubuntu. All the major distros were available. Canonical's cooperation is useful from a trademarks standpoint, but I don't see Canonical having any leverage in this arrangement.

squarefoot 7y ago

"But I'm not sure what this will do to Open Source in the long run." I don't know about Open Source as a concept/movement, however it will destroy Linux as we know it. More and more developers are already flocking to it (and VSC) for writing Linux software. All it needs is a killer library (Windows GUI bindings?) and/or extensions that could push developers into writing software that expects to be run under WSL instead of the real thing. It may seem stretched, but WSL is to Linux what WINE is to Windows; so how many of us could run Windows software under WINE without any Windows installed? WINE didn't damage Windows because there are simply too many native Windows installs compared to Linux users with WINE, but what about the other way around? Linux wouldn't stand a chance. Microsoft is slowly gaining full control of Linux, one developer at a time, and nobody seems to care.

godzillabrennus 7y ago
Linux runs on more servers than desktops. Can’t imagine the licensing for server editions of Windows will take off when Linux for servers is still FOSS. I think it’s great that more people are getting access to FOSS on Windows. I remember when Linux didn’t have a package manager and you had to install dependencies manually. Enabling Windows users a limited Linux experience should help encourage more Linux switchers.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  "Enabling Windows users a limited Linux experience should help encourage more Linux switchers." I really wished this was the case, however I hardly imagine Microsoft execs discussing at meetings the introduction of WSL to encourage people to switch to Linux.
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    A "limited Linux experience" has been available to Windows users since Cygwin allowed us to have bash and gcc on a Windows machine. I used it a bit in the early 2000's and extensively in 2008-2009 when I was issued my first Windows laptop in ages. Before my laptop suffered a most regrettable accident that rendered the Windows partition inoperable and forced me to switch to Linux. When hardware virtualization became available and memory became more abundant, running Linux VMs was a no-brainer. WSL2 is faster, better integrated and closer to what a Linux environment is supposed to be.

Phylter 7y ago

I can't say how it'll effect everybody else or what the overall effect will be but I do use WSL quite a bit. I don't use Linux as my main desktop but I have been using Linux since '98 in some dual boot but mostly headless installs. For me it makes life much easier. All I want from Linux is the command line. Instead of having to fire up a VM or SSH into a remote box and transfer files I have access to them on my PC. Based on my experience it makes Linux more accessible to me. It doesn't really change the way I use Linux other than to give me more options. I can't imagine it being hurtful to Linux overall. Because of things like the Raspberry Pi and Android people are already in some ways getting familiar with Linux. Because of MacOS some people are getting familiar with Unix in general. If anything I think people will be like me in that WSL will simply make Linux more accessible.