2 ms·
I agree. I recently bailed on WSL because my poor crappy laptop was buckling under the weight of the extra resource demand. I’m not using Cygwin, but similarly
by 40four 6y ago
I agree. I recently bailed on WSL because my poor crappy laptop was buckling under the weight of the extra resource demand.
I’m not using Cygwin, but similarly, I decided to trick out my git bash with extra packages from MSYS2. I have all the Linux tools I need, been having a great experience with it.
The amount of resources it takes to run WSL, or a virtual box on older hardware can be devastating. You don’t hear this mentioned much.
- naikrovek 6y agoWSL1 doesn't use a virtual machine, and only implements Linux syscalls as NT kernel syscalls. There's no VM or OS overhead; WSL1 is 100% userland software, except for the kernel translation stuff. You should not have any issues with WSL1 in terms of system load or "weight" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean in computer terms. This is used all the time and I've never once seen a definition for it. What is the unit of measurement? What's the border between "lightweight" and "not lightweight?" This industry as a whole ingests far too many hallucinogens. )