4 ms·
IMHO, if the requirement is just for Linux CLI tools, WSL1 - it still exists - may have been a better experience. It gives access to a complete distro without h
by yyyk 3y ago
IMHO, if the requirement is just for Linux CLI tools, WSL1 - it still exists - may have been a better experience. It gives access to a complete distro without having to deal with WSL2 hibernation issues.
- LoganDark 3y agoIMHO, they should have invested more in WSL1 - it actually shares Windows resources and runs under the Windows kernel rather than trying to do clever things with virtual machines.
- prynhart 3y agoYeah WSL1 is underrated - and more elegant IMHO
- LoganDark 3y agoI think the reason they gave up is because the Linux kernel has a LOT of syscalls, and every single one would have to be implemented flawlessly in order to properly support all of userspace. They'd basically be implementing a second Linux kernel.
- speed_spread 3y agoAlso because filesystem access translation results in very poor performance vs native Linux filesystem, which is basically insurmountable because of Windows design.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoElegant but really hard to implement and maintain (at least on top of the NT base (which I mention because illumos and some BSDs implement Linux compat more easily by being unix-like in the first place)); it's much like how WINE is pretty decent but will always have more compatibility problems than just running Windows in a VM.
- bigpeopleareold 3y agoProbably, but this is on a corporate computer and I saw that no WSL version would work. I am otherwise not interested in using Windows (and found a way to avoid it :D )