4 ms·
Microsoft's lesson suggests that actual user needs have evolved passed the point where FreeBSD-style emulation compatibility is good enough. Users are no longer
by FooBarWidget 3y ago
Microsoft's lesson suggests that actual user needs have evolved passed the point where FreeBSD-style emulation compatibility is good enough. Users are no longer content with "good enough" Linux compatibility, they want perfect Linux compatibility.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- baq 3y agoLast time I tried WSL1 it couldn’t run Postgres, which was immediate disqualification for my backend work, if you could live with the slow git. WSL2 runs Postgres, docker and basically anything, and git is as fast as native if you stick to WSL2 file system. The quote is misrepresenting issues with wsl1.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoTwo thoughts: * As I sort of mentioned, I suspect that the others may actually do a better job of compatibility than WSL1 because they're on unix-likes already so there's less fundamental differences to try and make compatible. For example, fork() is already cheap, and unix-likes already have filesystem performance like Linux. * A binary compatibility layer is less important to begin with since you're already on a unix-like. For example, sibling comment says postgres didn't work; FreeBSD already has postgres as a fully supported native package, so you're unlikely to care how it runs under the Linux compat layer.