5 ms·

WSL2 IS linux though. There was definitely an argument to be made that WSL1 wasn't linux, but WSL2 is full linux within a virtual machine on windows. I don't

WSL2 IS linux though. There was definitely an argument to be made that WSL1 wasn't linux, but WSL2 is full linux within a virtual machine on windows. I don't know how you can claim that is not the 'real thing' when it definitely is.

thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
Linux can be run without Microsoft telemetry. Op was saying that he/she could not run WSL2 without Microsoft telemetry. So, yes WSL2 includes Linux plus Microsoft telemetry. Parent was saying that Op actually wants Linux, since Op wants Linux functionality, but not Microsoft telemetry.
- holtalanm 6y ago
  I was more addressing the second part of the parent comment, which stated that WSL2 wasn't true linux.
  - squarefoot 6y ago
    It is not true Linux in spirit because it forces the user to live with telemetry and other closed source software and drivers, which defeats the purpose Linux itself was built upon. Not just that. Privacy, trustworthiness and security aside, let's imagine Microsoft porting (or simply making WSL-aware) some of their software, libraries, system internals hooks, anything that Linux users wanted for ages, gaming libraries etc.), to WSL and not Linux, that is, they require WSL but won't run on Linux, or will run "better" on WSL, or possibly will run on Linux but require some closed or prohibitively licensed code to (properly) run. Those surely are bleak scenarios, but corporations are there to make profits, and forcing Linux users to require a Microsoft branded layer of software is without any doubt a way to keep them hooked to Windows, which for some will turn into buying products and services from Microsoft, and for others into finding less and less software that will run on plain Linux. I wouldn't be surprised at all if say in two years more books will be published about WSL than about Linux. That would hurt as well since it would mean less courses, less schools adopting Linux, in plain words less users.
    - annadane 6y ago
      I completely agree and I'm sick of the number of apologists on HN
temac 6y ago
WSL2 contains Linux and other stuff. I would not say "WSL2 is Linux" because that kind of imply a bijection which does not exist, and MS is starting to play on that while extending WSL2 with e.g. D3D12 access to the host and talking about that with titles like: "DirectX loves Linux". That's not even strictly similar to the more traditional "integration tools" of VMs, given the user experience integration they provide which is at the core of WSL (in their case the VM aspect is more of an implementation detail, see the network, stdin/out, and maybe tomorrow GUI integration -- and of course see historically the architecture of WSL1 which provided a subset of the same services without a VM and without Linux), and also given they never talk about opening that kind integration to other VMs, even less third party ones. Maybe they will (I would not count on it) in which case it is slightly more ok, maybe they won't, in which case this is border line an hostile attempt to fork the ecosystem and redefine "Linux" (in the sense of traditional GNU/Linux desktop distros) as Linux running under Windows with WSL.
- holtalanm 6y ago
  I'm not seeing anything in what you said that would prove WSL2 is not Linux. Saying WSL2 is Linux does _not_, in fact, imply that Linux is WSL2, and there have never been any claims to that by anyone within or outside of Microsoft. What you just said equates to "A Motorcycle with a side-car attached can't be called a motorcycle because to call it a motorcycle implies all motorcycles have side-cars", which makes absolutely no sense.
j0057 6y ago
You get a Microsoft-supplied kernel, which has modifications to integrate more with the host OS. I'm not going to make a value judgement about it being the real thing or not, but it's definitely not the stock kernel that comes with Ubuntu.
- holtalanm 6y ago
  That's fair. True, it may be a modified linux kernel, but it is still linux. To say otherwise would be disingenuous and misleading, imo. WSL1, on the other hand, was just a proxy masquerading as a linux kernel, so I would understand confusion between WSL1 and WSL2 on which is real linux and which isn't.
  - j0057 6y ago
    Microsoft effectively forked Linux here -- some pieces such as integration with the host NTFS filesystems or Direct3D support are unlikely to ever be upstreamed. Yes it's Linux, but not really. Another way you can tell it's not actually Linux: if something is acting up, where do I inspect the source code? Where can I send a PR if I come up with a fix? It's smart that MS bought itself a Linux foundation platinum membership; that probably goes a long way in preempting trademark claims of the 'Linux' name.

thesuperbigfrog 6y ago

Linux can be run without Microsoft telemetry. Op was saying that he/she could not run WSL2 without Microsoft telemetry. So, yes WSL2 includes Linux plus Microsoft telemetry. Parent was saying that Op actually wants Linux, since Op wants Linux functionality, but not Microsoft telemetry.

holtalanm 6y ago
I was more addressing the second part of the parent comment, which stated that WSL2 wasn't true linux.
- squarefoot 6y ago
  It is not true Linux in spirit because it forces the user to live with telemetry and other closed source software and drivers, which defeats the purpose Linux itself was built upon. Not just that. Privacy, trustworthiness and security aside, let's imagine Microsoft porting (or simply making WSL-aware) some of their software, libraries, system internals hooks, anything that Linux users wanted for ages, gaming libraries etc.), to WSL and not Linux, that is, they require WSL but won't run on Linux, or will run "better" on WSL, or possibly will run on Linux but require some closed or prohibitively licensed code to (properly) run. Those surely are bleak scenarios, but corporations are there to make profits, and forcing Linux users to require a Microsoft branded layer of software is without any doubt a way to keep them hooked to Windows, which for some will turn into buying products and services from Microsoft, and for others into finding less and less software that will run on plain Linux. I wouldn't be surprised at all if say in two years more books will be published about WSL than about Linux. That would hurt as well since it would mean less courses, less schools adopting Linux, in plain words less users.
  - annadane 6y ago
    I completely agree and I'm sick of the number of apologists on HN

temac 6y ago

WSL2 contains Linux and other stuff. I would not say "WSL2 is Linux" because that kind of imply a bijection which does not exist, and MS is starting to play on that while extending WSL2 with e.g. D3D12 access to the host and talking about that with titles like: "DirectX loves Linux". That's not even strictly similar to the more traditional "integration tools" of VMs, given the user experience integration they provide which is at the core of WSL (in their case the VM aspect is more of an implementation detail, see the network, stdin/out, and maybe tomorrow GUI integration -- and of course see historically the architecture of WSL1 which provided a subset of the same services without a VM and without Linux), and also given they never talk about opening that kind integration to other VMs, even less third party ones. Maybe they will (I would not count on it) in which case it is slightly more ok, maybe they won't, in which case this is border line an hostile attempt to fork the ecosystem and redefine "Linux" (in the sense of traditional GNU/Linux desktop distros) as Linux running under Windows with WSL.

holtalanm 6y ago
I'm not seeing anything in what you said that would prove WSL2 is not Linux. Saying WSL2 is Linux does _not_, in fact, imply that Linux is WSL2, and there have never been any claims to that by anyone within or outside of Microsoft. What you just said equates to "A Motorcycle with a side-car attached can't be called a motorcycle because to call it a motorcycle implies all motorcycles have side-cars", which makes absolutely no sense.

j0057 6y ago

You get a Microsoft-supplied kernel, which has modifications to integrate more with the host OS. I'm not going to make a value judgement about it being the real thing or not, but it's definitely not the stock kernel that comes with Ubuntu.

holtalanm 6y ago
That's fair. True, it may be a modified linux kernel, but it is still linux. To say otherwise would be disingenuous and misleading, imo. WSL1, on the other hand, was just a proxy masquerading as a linux kernel, so I would understand confusion between WSL1 and WSL2 on which is real linux and which isn't.
- j0057 6y ago
  Microsoft effectively forked Linux here -- some pieces such as integration with the host NTFS filesystems or Direct3D support are unlikely to ever be upstreamed. Yes it's Linux, but not really. Another way you can tell it's not actually Linux: if something is acting up, where do I inspect the source code? Where can I send a PR if I come up with a fix? It's smart that MS bought itself a Linux foundation platinum membership; that probably goes a long way in preempting trademark claims of the 'Linux' name.