5 ms·

> Can you imagine how cool it would be to manipulate Windows services from the WSL session? It is a cool integration trick and might even be useful for some pe

by sime2009 6y ago

> Can you imagine how cool it would be to manipulate Windows services from the WSL session? It is a cool integration trick and might even be useful for some people like the author and their role with Azure. But it isn't remotely interesting for most WSL users who just want a local Linux to run containers in, or Linux tools, or just do server related stuff.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
But there's literally no point in having WSL then, as such users can just keep using VirtualBox as they always did.
- sime2009 6y ago
  The goals of WSL2 compared to VirtualBox or HyperV are: * Lower memory use * Tighter integration with networking. i.e. it looks like it is running on localhost. * Start/stops on demand, and much faster. * (easier) file system integration. i.e. you can easily get to your Linux files from inside Windows. So there actually are some points to WSL2. For me personally I couldn't get Docker (actually its networking) to work properly via WSL2 so I'm still on a VM. But at least it works. VSCode's remote working feature is fantastic too in this situation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- wildpeaks 6y ago
  That's exactly what I ended up concluding as well when I tried switching to WSL 2 because it added too much friction to the DX, whereas Docker Compose and the Docker VSCode extension kept things simple and scoped. I didn't even keep WSL 2 as Docker engine because it doesn't forward filechange events from shared folders (which breaks livereload / watch mode), ended up going back to Hyper-V and it does exactly what I need.
  - sime2009 6y ago
    I tried to use Windows Docker with the WSL2 back-end and the impression I got was that it was for people wanting to run scripts on windows which then run docker things. What I just wanted was scripts running on Linux which then did docker things. The whole mix of two operating systems was just complexity and problem I didn't want. I just run vanilla docker inside a Linux VM and everything works as expected now.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

But there's literally no point in having WSL then, as such users can just keep using VirtualBox as they always did.

sime2009 6y ago
The goals of WSL2 compared to VirtualBox or HyperV are: * Lower memory use * Tighter integration with networking. i.e. it looks like it is running on localhost. * Start/stops on demand, and much faster. * (easier) file system integration. i.e. you can easily get to your Linux files from inside Windows. So there actually are some points to WSL2. For me personally I couldn't get Docker (actually its networking) to work properly via WSL2 so I'm still on a VM. But at least it works. VSCode's remote working feature is fantastic too in this situation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
wildpeaks 6y ago
That's exactly what I ended up concluding as well when I tried switching to WSL 2 because it added too much friction to the DX, whereas Docker Compose and the Docker VSCode extension kept things simple and scoped. I didn't even keep WSL 2 as Docker engine because it doesn't forward filechange events from shared folders (which breaks livereload / watch mode), ended up going back to Hyper-V and it does exactly what I need.
- sime2009 6y ago
  I tried to use Windows Docker with the WSL2 back-end and the impression I got was that it was for people wanting to run scripts on windows which then run docker things. What I just wanted was scripts running on Linux which then did docker things. The whole mix of two operating systems was just complexity and problem I didn't want. I just run vanilla docker inside a Linux VM and everything works as expected now.