7 ms·

First a developer you don't do only programming: you maybe have to work with documents, do a presentation, a spreadsheet and thus use Office. You maybe have to

First a developer you don't do only programming: you maybe have to work with documents, do a presentation, a spreadsheet and thus use Office. You maybe have to make some icons or logos and thus you need Adobe Illustrator. You maybe need to connect to a printer like the one that we have at my office that good luck doing that on Linux. You maybe need a CAD software to designa PCB, you need whatever other software that is Windows-only. Second there are situation where as a developer you are forced to use Windows. A lot of SDKs, compilers, debuggers, programmers for microcontrollers, FPGA, etc runs only on Windows, and if you have to do with firmware development you are basically forced to either use Windows or spend a week just to make a LED blink (if you manage to do that). Same reason for using macOS: I use a Mac mainly because I need to make iOS software and the only way is to use a Mac. By the way macOS to me is a good compromise, you have all your UNIX tools in a system that you can use to run also proprietary software. On my server I use Linux, even if recently I started using more and more FreeBSD and I'm liking it a lot (recently they added too much useless bloat in Linux like systemd and other crap, while on FreeBSD you have a simple system that is stable as a rock)

Skunkleton 6y ago
Just to add to this: Linux is happy to work in whatever way is convenient to you. WSL2 is case and point here. Windows is less flexible. If I can get everything I want out of one environment (stable gui, business software, and a native-like linux shell), that will save me the hassle of multiple machines, traditional VMs, or dual booting. I don't think we will see the Linux Subsystem for Windows 2 ever. I also am not enamored with GUI side of the Linux world. WSL2 seems like a not bad place to land. In my ideal world, Microsoft would base Windows on a mainline linux kernel. That would make me so happy.
- smichel17 6y ago
  The Linux Subsystem for Windows 1, on the other hand, is called Wine and works impressively well. Better than WSL1 did, at any rate.
  - Skunkleton 6y ago
    Yeah LSW1 is better than WSL1 ever was IMO.
  - DarkmSparks 6y ago
    Surely wine is a windows subsystem for linux? absolutely _nothing_ about the subsystem made by microsoft is "for linux". I also still dont understand what you get for paying for a windows licence to run linux except more overhead and a total lack of a package manager.
    - Skunkleton 6y ago
      WSL1 emulates linux's syscall interface. WSL2 is a lightweight vm. In either case you can run a regular distro, so not sure what you are on about a package manager.
      - DarkmSparks 6y ago
        I understand what they do. I just dont understand why you would do it. What is the benefit compared to the much simpler, better performance and cheaper option of just running Linux proper and using wine for windows things.
        Skunkleton 6y ago
        Ok, think of your favorite Linux only application, then imagine running it through cygwin. Does that sound like a good time?
        DarkmSparks 6y ago
        at least twice the fun of trying to get it stable on wsl.
hpcjoe 6y ago
> ... other software that is Windows-only. So, I guess when I use Office365 on my linux laptop, which is connected to a HiDPI monitor, that I can't do what you say. Ok. Here's a bit of a reality check. You can do, with very limited corner cases, everything you want to do on windows, on linux (and Mac) today, via the web or similar clients. One exception to this is skype for business. Which is complete and utter trash anyway. But there is a commercial linux version, not by Microsoft, that works quite well for it. I have it and use it. Teams for linux from Microsoft is in preview/beta. But, the port using electron was out first. And is fully operational. For things that just absolutely require windows, I boot my licensed windows 10 home which was installed on a small SSD when I bought the laptop, in a qemu kvm window. Everything works on it. I am amazed with all the hate on Linux desktops. I've been using Linux machines as my primary desktops, and linux laptops for more than 20 years. My current laptop is a Sager (Clevo) unit with 64 GB ram, 1.5TB SSD, GTX1060. Win10 was installed when I bought it, on an SSD. I changed boot order, installed Linux Mint 17.x at the time, and everything just worked. Once I realized I could use windows from the qemu kvm session, I set that up. Took about 10 minutes. Something I've learned from a long and painful life with windows, is that one should never let it touch real hardware. When you have to manage it versus fleets of linux machines, you understand why keeping it virtualized is the best option. FWIW, I don't think WSL2 is going to change anyone's game. This is my opinion of course, but most of the developers I know are either on Mac books, or linux machines. About 60-40 split. In my field (HPC) its 25-75. Microsoft's best play at this moment would be to buy Canonical, and offer that as MS Linux.
ngcc_hk 6y ago
A very fair and practical judgement. May use a mac and remote to windows as some linux egpu has driver issues bout not windows. Remote vs code from mac?
anthk 6y ago
>some icons or logos Imagemagick and call it done. Now everyone likes minimalist shit, so here you have. Or Xfig, if you feel fancy. >You maybe need to connect to a printer like the one that we have at my office that good luck doing that on Linux CUPS has less issues on Unix than the Windows "today it prints, tomorrow I'll toss a coin and let the Universe decide".
SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
I personally like systemd, and I wish FreeBSD will eventually have it.

Skunkleton 6y ago

Just to add to this: Linux is happy to work in whatever way is convenient to you. WSL2 is case and point here. Windows is less flexible. If I can get everything I want out of one environment (stable gui, business software, and a native-like linux shell), that will save me the hassle of multiple machines, traditional VMs, or dual booting. I don't think we will see the Linux Subsystem for Windows 2 ever. I also am not enamored with GUI side of the Linux world. WSL2 seems like a not bad place to land. In my ideal world, Microsoft would base Windows on a mainline linux kernel. That would make me so happy.

smichel17 6y ago
The Linux Subsystem for Windows 1, on the other hand, is called Wine and works impressively well. Better than WSL1 did, at any rate.
- Skunkleton 6y ago
  Yeah LSW1 is better than WSL1 ever was IMO.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  Surely wine is a windows subsystem for linux? absolutely _nothing_ about the subsystem made by microsoft is "for linux". I also still dont understand what you get for paying for a windows licence to run linux except more overhead and a total lack of a package manager.
  - Skunkleton 6y ago
    WSL1 emulates linux's syscall interface. WSL2 is a lightweight vm. In either case you can run a regular distro, so not sure what you are on about a package manager.
    - DarkmSparks 6y ago
      I understand what they do. I just dont understand why you would do it. What is the benefit compared to the much simpler, better performance and cheaper option of just running Linux proper and using wine for windows things.
      - Skunkleton 6y ago
        Ok, think of your favorite Linux only application, then imagine running it through cygwin. Does that sound like a good time?
        DarkmSparks 6y ago
        at least twice the fun of trying to get it stable on wsl.

hpcjoe 6y ago

> ... other software that is Windows-only. So, I guess when I use Office365 on my linux laptop, which is connected to a HiDPI monitor, that I can't do what you say. Ok. Here's a bit of a reality check. You can do, with very limited corner cases, everything you want to do on windows, on linux (and Mac) today, via the web or similar clients. One exception to this is skype for business. Which is complete and utter trash anyway. But there is a commercial linux version, not by Microsoft, that works quite well for it. I have it and use it. Teams for linux from Microsoft is in preview/beta. But, the port using electron was out first. And is fully operational. For things that just absolutely require windows, I boot my licensed windows 10 home which was installed on a small SSD when I bought the laptop, in a qemu kvm window. Everything works on it. I am amazed with all the hate on Linux desktops. I've been using Linux machines as my primary desktops, and linux laptops for more than 20 years. My current laptop is a Sager (Clevo) unit with 64 GB ram, 1.5TB SSD, GTX1060. Win10 was installed when I bought it, on an SSD. I changed boot order, installed Linux Mint 17.x at the time, and everything just worked. Once I realized I could use windows from the qemu kvm session, I set that up. Took about 10 minutes. Something I've learned from a long and painful life with windows, is that one should never let it touch real hardware. When you have to manage it versus fleets of linux machines, you understand why keeping it virtualized is the best option. FWIW, I don't think WSL2 is going to change anyone's game. This is my opinion of course, but most of the developers I know are either on Mac books, or linux machines. About 60-40 split. In my field (HPC) its 25-75. Microsoft's best play at this moment would be to buy Canonical, and offer that as MS Linux.

ngcc_hk 6y ago

A very fair and practical judgement. May use a mac and remote to windows as some linux egpu has driver issues bout not windows. Remote vs code from mac?

anthk 6y ago

>some icons or logos Imagemagick and call it done. Now everyone likes minimalist shit, so here you have. Or Xfig, if you feel fancy. >You maybe need to connect to a printer like the one that we have at my office that good luck doing that on Linux CUPS has less issues on Unix than the Windows "today it prints, tomorrow I'll toss a coin and let the Universe decide".

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago

I personally like systemd, and I wish FreeBSD will eventually have it.