4 ms·
They could've instead worked on speeding up the I/O subsystem and sped up Windows altogether. I refuse to believe it's impossible. The more plausible reasons to
by mehrdadn 7y ago
They could've instead worked on speeding up the I/O subsystem and sped up Windows altogether. I refuse to believe it's impossible. The more plausible reasons to me seem to be (a) they have to work independently from the I/O subsystem team(s) for whatever reason (maybe they didn't care enough to cooperate), or (b) it's too tricky to get right and prone to bugs, so they preferred not to have to deal with it and risk breaking I/O.
- close04 7y agoI/O subsystem performance is just one aspect. WSL 1 is missing a lot of other stuff probably because the effort to implement it all was to great. MS would have to duplicate a lot of the effort already put in by Linux developers. So they went the route of a full Linux VM. And no matter how much MS improves WSL 1 there would always be something missing that enough users want/need. For example I care more about the network related stuff that wasn't implemented (NETLINK_ROUTE\RTM_GETROUTE, AF_PACKET family) because this excluded nmap.