3 ms·

I guess I don't follow your point. The very reason WSL2 exists is because there were countless issues that COULDN'T be fixed with the way WSL1 was implemented.

by tw04 6y ago

I guess I don't follow your point. The very reason WSL2 exists is because there were countless issues that COULDN'T be fixed with the way WSL1 was implemented. Why would they leave an issue open they fixed, just because the fix required a complete re-implementation? Furthermore why would they change the name, this is literally how they are carrying forward the functionality of WSL 1. It's still Linux on Windows, there is still a custom subsystem to allow the functionality. It is quite literally still Windows Subsystem for Linux. As documented: https://i.redd.it/po98dksksjx21.png https://i.redd.it/po98dksksjx21.png Should Mac Office not be called Office because they completely re-wrote it?

hvdijk 6y ago
They aren't carrying forward the functionality of WSL1. Yes, there are issues that cannot be fixed in WSL1. There are also issues that aren't, and quite likely can't be, fixed in WSL2, that do work in WSL1. The file system corruption that happens here in WSL2 is a nice example, it is something that could not possibly ever happen with WSL1 because of the way it was designed. WSL2 is not and will never be a full replacement for WSL1; WSL1 and WSL2 are two separate products, both with their own advantages and disadvantages, and I wish Microsoft would treat them as such. > Should Mac Office not be called Office because they completely re-wrote it? I do not know how different Office for Windows and Office for Mac are, but to go with a different example, yes, I do think Visual Studio for Mac and Visual Studio Code should not have carried the Visual Studio name, it causes unnecessary confusion.