3 ms·

I believe WSL 1 is abandonware so WSL 2 is just WSL so to answer your question, it's WSL 2 1.0.0 lol

reyqn 4y ago
It's sad since WSL 1 really is more interesting than WSL 2. Also better suited for my use cases, since it's on the same network interface.
- xeromal 4y ago
  Yeah, I thought wsl 1 was very cool.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  microcontroller & fpga programming, all kinds of usb and serial port stuff, all unusable on wsl2, works on wsl1, hell even cygwin. wsl2 is half-baked crap.
  - anderspitman 4y ago
    I think the problem is that the market is much more interested in things like container development, which doesn't generally need hardware access beyond CPU, RAM, network, maybe storage, and maybe GPU. WSL2 is much better than WSL1 at solving my problems. But that sucks it has become worse for you :/
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      I another comment I likened it to an amazing car that just can't turn left off of one-way streets. You can do a lot and never notice, but I just happen to live on a one-way street. Maybe they just shouldn't be calling it a linux system or an os but just an application server. Do that and the missing finctionality suddenly isn't a problem because it's not implied in the first place. I never would have made this complaint about tomcat or whatever.
WorldMaker 4y ago
The blogs claim WSL1 is still being maintained and there are scenarios where WSL1 still makes sense. (WSL1 has better hardware compatibility because it is not VM emulated hardware but direct access via the NT Kernel, as an example mentioned in other comment threads here.) This seems like a case where they should have picked a different naming scheme rather than numbers like WSL-A and WSL-B or something.
- pxc 4y ago
  The blogs also claim that their strategy for addressing the use cases where WSL1 is still needed is to try to improve WSL2 in those areas, i.e., to pave the way to fully abandoning WSL1.

It's sad since WSL 1 really is more interesting than WSL 2. Also better suited for my use cases, since it's on the same network interface.

xeromal 4y ago
Yeah, I thought wsl 1 was very cool.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
microcontroller & fpga programming, all kinds of usb and serial port stuff, all unusable on wsl2, works on wsl1, hell even cygwin. wsl2 is half-baked crap.
- anderspitman 4y ago
  I think the problem is that the market is much more interested in things like container development, which doesn't generally need hardware access beyond CPU, RAM, network, maybe storage, and maybe GPU. WSL2 is much better than WSL1 at solving my problems. But that sucks it has become worse for you :/
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    I another comment I likened it to an amazing car that just can't turn left off of one-way streets. You can do a lot and never notice, but I just happen to live on a one-way street. Maybe they just shouldn't be calling it a linux system or an os but just an application server. Do that and the missing finctionality suddenly isn't a problem because it's not implied in the first place. I never would have made this complaint about tomcat or whatever.

WorldMaker 4y ago

The blogs claim WSL1 is still being maintained and there are scenarios where WSL1 still makes sense. (WSL1 has better hardware compatibility because it is not VM emulated hardware but direct access via the NT Kernel, as an example mentioned in other comment threads here.) This seems like a case where they should have picked a different naming scheme rather than numbers like WSL-A and WSL-B or something.

pxc 4y ago
The blogs also claim that their strategy for addressing the use cases where WSL1 is still needed is to try to improve WSL2 in those areas, i.e., to pave the way to fully abandoning WSL1.