4 ms·
> I think if that really matters you should be against anything in the kernel to make it work well as a VM under Windows or MacOS or BSD, and in VMware or Virtu
by yuribro 6y ago
> I think if that really matters you should be against anything in the kernel to make it work well as a VM under Windows or MacOS or BSD, and in VMware or VirtualBox too.
Why? I would guess that a very large share of linux kernels run under a hypervisor in some data center, in a public cloud or some OpenStack cluster. Won't those mostly be the same features?
- TeMPOraL 6y agoBecause WSL doesn't compete with people who would otherwise run a Linux box, it competes with people who would otherwise shove Ubuntu into a VirtualBox and run it on their Windows box in seamless mode. So the idea that it drives people away from Linux proper is nonsense (BTW., WSL is Linux proper), unless you also believe that installing a Linux in a VM on a proprietary system is also driving people away.
- yuribro 6y agoI agree with you completely. I think that the comment I was replying to thinks otherwise.
- kbenson 6y agoNo, I was just a little more abiguous due to a left out word or two than I intended. >>> I think if that really matters you should be against Should be interpreted as (and I meant to write as) >>> I think if that really matters to you you should be against The rest of the comment should have made that obvious though, especially the last two paragraphs.
- yuribro 6y agoNow I get your intention, the original phrasing made me it parse it incorrectly. Happy to know that we also agree then.
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago> ... shove Ubuntu into a VirtualBox and run it on their Windows box in seamless mode Given that the WSL2 rewrite is essentially this, without even the niceties of a VirtualBox GUI wrapper to control the settings, I keep wondering what all the fuss is about.