5 ms·

WSL has been a deitysend, I appreciate it quite a bit now. It allowed me to get out of Macos development hell, allows 'dropping into' Linux easily from Win if

WSL has been a deitysend, I appreciate it quite a bit now. It allowed me to get out of Macos development hell, allows 'dropping into' Linux easily from Win if one is too lazy to dual boot, and especially useful in enterprises where Win/Mac are the only options. That said I will agree with other comments here, the version numbering is weird. I can't even tell _how_ to tell what version of WSL I have. Versioning is still an unsolved problem even for tech giants I observe.

22SAS 4y ago
True true! I am stuck to Windows at work, while we SSH into development Linux machines. Windows terminal and WSL keep me from going insane. All I need to do is just F11 the terminal, make it fullscreen and forget ever that I am on Windows. With Mac OS I still like the Mac terminal more than the Windows terminal and just SSH into Linux boxes. Still, for me, nothing beats a Linux desktop with i3wm on it.
- yusefnapora 4y ago
  You can run i3 via WSL if you use an alternate X server like X410 or vcxsrv instead of the built-in wayland RDP bridge thing. vcxsrv is a bit nicer, since it lets you run the X display in fullscreen mode.
  - Arnavion 4y ago
    I don't know anything about WSL, but if it has a wayland server like you say and if 22SAS wants to use i3, they could try sway with the wayland backend.
- altruios 4y ago
  I have not tried it yet, but there is a port of i3wm for windows... but I agree Linux is a better experience :)
- danuker 4y ago
  > SSH into development Linux machines If you need to keep doing this, I warmly recommend Mosh instead. https://mosh.org/ https://mosh.org/
  - 22SAS 4y ago
    I have heard of it but never used it. I'd try it out on my personal machines. Work machines are Windows thin clients, since IT doesn't want to support Macs and the Linux teams are absolutely only concerned with dev and prod Linux machines. Plus being in HFT, the machines are all tightly locked down, couldn't even install WSL and Windows Terminal on my own.
    - danuker 4y ago
      Sadly you do need both a mosh client and a server installed. But you might get tremendous productivity benefits which might make it worth auditing it (maybe worth talking to your boss/customer).
  - flyinghamster 4y ago
    Mosh is lovely, but keep in mind that you can't use agent forwarding, nor use it in pipes. On the other hand, if you're stuck on dodgy Wi-Fi or just about any mobile link, or you want to close your laptop and resume your session elsewhere, it's an absolute godsend. Mosh backed up with either tmux or screen is handy indeed.
- Kwpolska 4y ago
  Windows has a native ssh command now, works great and requires less resources than WSL.
  - CoolCold 4y ago
    in addition, for random strangers: where "now" is probably 3 years, if not even 4 years. And sshd server as well.
samuel 4y ago
It's definitely better than cygwin, but cygwin was ok already. I don't see it as a game changer.
- sureglymop 4y ago
  Personally i think it's cool but less interesting than cygwin and less interesting than wsl 1. A well integrated virtual machine is cool and all, but actually translating system calls or rewriting software for another environment is more interesting.
- anderspitman 4y ago
  My understanding is they tried using more of a cygwin approach for a couple years with WSL1, but ultimately they weren't able to get some major software like Docker to work, not to mention the long tail.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    WSL1 was much more interesting than cygwin: cygwin is a collection of ports. WSL1 used the existing binaries and transported kernel calls directly to a Linux kernel "personality" for the NT Kernel (which was designed to flexibly support multiple "personalities" like that way back in the day, but which hadn't been put to much use in recent decades before WSL1 brought it back and did something cool with it). (WSL2 is a lightweight VM in a traditional VM sense.)
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      Interesting, sure, but WSL2 is simply much better to use as a daily driver and for production. I don't have to worry about whether stuff works or not like in WSL1, because, as you say, it's a VM so most stuff should work just fine.
      - mmis1000 4y ago
        I think everything except io is an okay in wsl1 if you only run user space software. But the io throughput is just bad. Iterate over 1000 image and hash each one costs only 1s in Linux and whole 20 seconds on wsl1. The way wsl2 implement fs is just far better. Let alone if you use nodejs and have tens of thousands of files in node_modules. 'npm install' will cost you a whole 5 minutes.
pxc 4y ago
There is a wsl --version ... if you're on a new enough version. -_-
matsemann 4y ago
It's extra confusing in that you have one type of WSL (1 or 2), a version number of the install of WSL2, one version of some kernel stuff, and one version of whatever Linux OS you're running in WSL.
mongol 4y ago
Having worked with Java during the early 00's, I feel right at home. Java 2 v 1.4, anyone?
nimbius 4y ago
"in enterprises where Win/Mac are the only options." Why does that happen? It feels like the only reason WSL exists in the first place is to help sidestep the monumental bureaucracy in fortune 100 companies that see Linux as nothing more than a risk. Its a methodone for companies that want devops, but are too calcified and encumbered to really do much besides lip service.
- everforward 4y ago
  Most distros have a poor security model for allowing partially-trusted users. The security model seems to have two modes: users/processes that are not trusted to do anything, and users/processes that are trusted to do nothing. E.g. try to find a sane and maintainable method for allowing non-root users to install Postgres. podman/Docker work for something like that, but what about VSCode? People can download a tarball, but I think the sandbox requires a setUID for some kind of security something. You can give people sudo rules, but sudo whitelisting is prone to ways to escape from the command and open a shell. WSL works because the company can control the hypervisor host strictly, and let the guest VM be more lax. The same would be true of a Linux VM inside a Linux host, but WSL lets the Windows people use Windows and the Linux people use Linux. It's not an unsolvable issue, but I can see why companies are interested in having a single device management suite that allows end users to use Windows or Linux (ish).
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    I’m aware of the risks of a compromised machine, but if a company doesn’t trust its own software devs with local root/Administrator privileges (which are absolutely required for doing one’s job in SWE if you’re doing anything in drivers/hardware) then they don’t trust them to do their job. It boggles the mind.
    - everforward 4y ago
      There are reasons beyond compromised machines. Some companies have compliance/insurance concerns that require things to be set up a certain way, and to prevent users from undoing them. E.g. full disk encryption might be required, and users prevented from undoing that. Maybe there's some kind of audit agent that needs to run, and you don't want users removing it. Others don't want engineers breaking their desktops, or setting things up in a way where it's going to break the automation. E.g. systemd-networkd is centrally managed, but some user hates it so they're using network-manager instead, and now they can't connect to the network because network port control got turned on. Amortize that across several thousand engineers and you can waste a lot of man-hours because people aren't using the tools they're supposed to. I like having full root/admin permissions, but I don't really need or want 95% of the permissions it gives me. Linux makes it hard to delegate the 5% I actually want/need without giving me the other 95% that are basically only ever going to be problematic.
dmitriid 4y ago
> Versioning is still an unsolved problem even for tech giants I observe. Well, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Think about Windows versions. Xbox versions. Or how to figure out where 64bit and 32bit goes on Windows [1] It's in their DNA :) [1] http://piers7.blogspot.com/2010/07/64-bit-explained.html http://piers7.blogspot.com/2010/07/64-bit-explained.html
- dibt 4y ago
  Yup, same with .NET framework. Such a pain....
  - nailer 4y ago
    Looking forward to wsl360 and WSLOne and WSL One X.
ziomek77 4y ago
Yeah, I saw the title "WSL 1.0.0 released" and the first thing I think of is... "I'm already using WSL2, how old is this news? wink, wink"
- musicale 4y ago
  I was hoping it was WSL1.
  - spixy 4y ago
    wait this is not WSL1? what is it then?

22SAS 4y ago

True true! I am stuck to Windows at work, while we SSH into development Linux machines. Windows terminal and WSL keep me from going insane. All I need to do is just F11 the terminal, make it fullscreen and forget ever that I am on Windows. With Mac OS I still like the Mac terminal more than the Windows terminal and just SSH into Linux boxes. Still, for me, nothing beats a Linux desktop with i3wm on it.

yusefnapora 4y ago
You can run i3 via WSL if you use an alternate X server like X410 or vcxsrv instead of the built-in wayland RDP bridge thing. vcxsrv is a bit nicer, since it lets you run the X display in fullscreen mode.
- Arnavion 4y ago
  I don't know anything about WSL, but if it has a wayland server like you say and if 22SAS wants to use i3, they could try sway with the wayland backend.
altruios 4y ago
I have not tried it yet, but there is a port of i3wm for windows... but I agree Linux is a better experience :)
danuker 4y ago
> SSH into development Linux machines If you need to keep doing this, I warmly recommend Mosh instead. https://mosh.org/ https://mosh.org/
- 22SAS 4y ago
  I have heard of it but never used it. I'd try it out on my personal machines. Work machines are Windows thin clients, since IT doesn't want to support Macs and the Linux teams are absolutely only concerned with dev and prod Linux machines. Plus being in HFT, the machines are all tightly locked down, couldn't even install WSL and Windows Terminal on my own.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Sadly you do need both a mosh client and a server installed. But you might get tremendous productivity benefits which might make it worth auditing it (maybe worth talking to your boss/customer).
- flyinghamster 4y ago
  Mosh is lovely, but keep in mind that you can't use agent forwarding, nor use it in pipes. On the other hand, if you're stuck on dodgy Wi-Fi or just about any mobile link, or you want to close your laptop and resume your session elsewhere, it's an absolute godsend. Mosh backed up with either tmux or screen is handy indeed.
Kwpolska 4y ago
Windows has a native ssh command now, works great and requires less resources than WSL.
- CoolCold 4y ago
  in addition, for random strangers: where "now" is probably 3 years, if not even 4 years. And sshd server as well.

samuel 4y ago

It's definitely better than cygwin, but cygwin was ok already. I don't see it as a game changer.

sureglymop 4y ago
Personally i think it's cool but less interesting than cygwin and less interesting than wsl 1. A well integrated virtual machine is cool and all, but actually translating system calls or rewriting software for another environment is more interesting.
anderspitman 4y ago
My understanding is they tried using more of a cygwin approach for a couple years with WSL1, but ultimately they weren't able to get some major software like Docker to work, not to mention the long tail.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  WSL1 was much more interesting than cygwin: cygwin is a collection of ports. WSL1 used the existing binaries and transported kernel calls directly to a Linux kernel "personality" for the NT Kernel (which was designed to flexibly support multiple "personalities" like that way back in the day, but which hadn't been put to much use in recent decades before WSL1 brought it back and did something cool with it). (WSL2 is a lightweight VM in a traditional VM sense.)
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Interesting, sure, but WSL2 is simply much better to use as a daily driver and for production. I don't have to worry about whether stuff works or not like in WSL1, because, as you say, it's a VM so most stuff should work just fine.
    - mmis1000 4y ago
      I think everything except io is an okay in wsl1 if you only run user space software. But the io throughput is just bad. Iterate over 1000 image and hash each one costs only 1s in Linux and whole 20 seconds on wsl1. The way wsl2 implement fs is just far better. Let alone if you use nodejs and have tens of thousands of files in node_modules. 'npm install' will cost you a whole 5 minutes.

pxc 4y ago

There is a wsl --version ... if you're on a new enough version. -_-

matsemann 4y ago

It's extra confusing in that you have one type of WSL (1 or 2), a version number of the install of WSL2, one version of some kernel stuff, and one version of whatever Linux OS you're running in WSL.

mongol 4y ago

Having worked with Java during the early 00's, I feel right at home. Java 2 v 1.4, anyone?

nimbius 4y ago

"in enterprises where Win/Mac are the only options." Why does that happen? It feels like the only reason WSL exists in the first place is to help sidestep the monumental bureaucracy in fortune 100 companies that see Linux as nothing more than a risk. Its a methodone for companies that want devops, but are too calcified and encumbered to really do much besides lip service.

everforward 4y ago
Most distros have a poor security model for allowing partially-trusted users. The security model seems to have two modes: users/processes that are not trusted to do anything, and users/processes that are trusted to do nothing. E.g. try to find a sane and maintainable method for allowing non-root users to install Postgres. podman/Docker work for something like that, but what about VSCode? People can download a tarball, but I think the sandbox requires a setUID for some kind of security something. You can give people sudo rules, but sudo whitelisting is prone to ways to escape from the command and open a shell. WSL works because the company can control the hypervisor host strictly, and let the guest VM be more lax. The same would be true of a Linux VM inside a Linux host, but WSL lets the Windows people use Windows and the Linux people use Linux. It's not an unsolvable issue, but I can see why companies are interested in having a single device management suite that allows end users to use Windows or Linux (ish).
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  I’m aware of the risks of a compromised machine, but if a company doesn’t trust its own software devs with local root/Administrator privileges (which are absolutely required for doing one’s job in SWE if you’re doing anything in drivers/hardware) then they don’t trust them to do their job. It boggles the mind.
  - everforward 4y ago
    There are reasons beyond compromised machines. Some companies have compliance/insurance concerns that require things to be set up a certain way, and to prevent users from undoing them. E.g. full disk encryption might be required, and users prevented from undoing that. Maybe there's some kind of audit agent that needs to run, and you don't want users removing it. Others don't want engineers breaking their desktops, or setting things up in a way where it's going to break the automation. E.g. systemd-networkd is centrally managed, but some user hates it so they're using network-manager instead, and now they can't connect to the network because network port control got turned on. Amortize that across several thousand engineers and you can waste a lot of man-hours because people aren't using the tools they're supposed to. I like having full root/admin permissions, but I don't really need or want 95% of the permissions it gives me. Linux makes it hard to delegate the 5% I actually want/need without giving me the other 95% that are basically only ever going to be problematic.

dmitriid 4y ago

> Versioning is still an unsolved problem even for tech giants I observe. Well, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Think about Windows versions. Xbox versions. Or how to figure out where 64bit and 32bit goes on Windows [1] It's in their DNA :) [1] http://piers7.blogspot.com/2010/07/64-bit-explained.html http://piers7.blogspot.com/2010/07/64-bit-explained.html

dibt 4y ago
Yup, same with .NET framework. Such a pain....
- nailer 4y ago
  Looking forward to wsl360 and WSLOne and WSL One X.

ziomek77 4y ago

Yeah, I saw the title "WSL 1.0.0 released" and the first thing I think of is... "I'm already using WSL2, how old is this news? wink, wink"

musicale 4y ago
I was hoping it was WSL1.
- spixy 4y ago
  wait this is not WSL1? what is it then?