5 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoYeah LSW1 is better than WSL1 ever was IMO.
- DarkmSparks 6y agoSurely 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 agoWSL1 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 agoI 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 agoOk, think of your favorite Linux only application, then imagine running it through cygwin. Does that sound like a good time?
- DarkmSparks 6y agoat least twice the fun of trying to get it stable on wsl.