4 ms·
The previous impl used the tech that became WSL1, and I'm not sure you can in practice bypass the Linux syscall. WSL1 is now deprecated and I don't think it is
by temac 6y ago
The previous impl used the tech that became WSL1, and I'm not sure you can in practice bypass the Linux syscall. WSL1 is now deprecated and I don't think it is actually reasonable to try to follow the fast paced dev of Linux, even more so since a few years. So the WSL2 approach seems perfectly fine.
- meddlepal 6y agoWSL1 is _not_ deprecated. it is just recommended you use WSL2 since theres a wide range of incompatibilities in WSL1 with various Linux tools. However if all you need is a basic toolchain in some ways it’s superior to WSL2 because it doesn’t require a VM.
- temac 6y agoYou are right although in my mind it is frozen, and given Linux continues to move, I see WSL1 has almost deprecated. For a few years it may continue to be useful, however soon enough you won't be able to run a modern distro on WSL1. At this point it would actually be defacto deprecated. Thus probably nobody, neither MS nor 3rd parties, will base a medium/long term plan on WSL1 now. It's already legacy tech; still maintained for essential things (security, etc.), but already legacy.
- treesknees 6y ago> I don't think it is actually reasonable to try to follow the fast paced dev of Linux That's not quite the reason why it's deprecated. Microsoft can emulate a stable kernel's ABI for a long time before needing to update, so it's not the "fast paced dev" of Linux. The problem that Windows simply can't 100% emulate the behavior of all syscalls with the way NT functions. As a result, WSL1 will always be a subset of the syscalls available on WSL2. It won't matter if they don't keep up with new ones, however it starts to make WSL1 less useful over time.