5 ms·
I think it's quite crap actually. If you don't have IPv6 on your network it just makes an address up and then tries to route everything through it because IPv6
by GekkePrutser 4y ago
I think it's quite crap actually.
If you don't have IPv6 on your network it just makes an address up and then tries to route everything through it because IPv6 has precedence.
And of course the sysctl to disable IPv6 doesn't work under WSL. It took me 30 mins just to fix that and that was straight out of the box.
I don't know why I'd want all the windows baggage on my Linux laptop.
- apatheticonion 4y agoWSL1 was so much better. WSL2 appears to simply be an effort for Microsoft to showcase Hyper-V and it has all the issues associated with virtualization - despite Microsoft's best attempts at blending the two environments.
- Karunamon 4y agoWSL1 was almost useless on anything that did a lot of file I/O (so, installing or updating packages for a development environment took ages). This was not fixable given how Windows handles the file system and as I understand it this was the main drive to move to WSL2
- apatheticonion 4y agoI think it was only if you were interacting with the Windows host FS, operations within the Linux fs were fine with performance. I would be surprised if there wasn't a solution to that they could have worked towards. Anyway, doesn't WSL2 mount Windows volumes over Samba?
- sterlind 4y agoWSL actually mounts over 9P from Plan 9 fame. fwiw I remember WSL1 being dog slow on file IO perf.