11 ms·

That's like asking way don't mac developers work in a linux vm instead of wanting a native build. Because working in a VM is inconvenient and has poor integrat

That's like asking way don't mac developers work in a linux vm instead of wanting a native build. Because working in a VM is inconvenient and has poor integration.

satvikpendem 3y ago
WSL2 is not really a VM though, in the traditional sense, as it has full hardware access, including the GPU. Technically, when you enable WSL2, the Windows build itself is running through the Hyper-V hypervisor, as is the Linux distribution. In fact, a few years ago, I used Proxmox to basically do the same thing, in order to test cross-desktop apps I was developing for Windows, Linux, and macOS (as a Hackintosh).
- fbdab103 3y ago
  As someone stuck on a Windows corporate laptop, I can say that WSL2 is definitely not on the approved software list. Unless it installed by default and comes with a big solid green check mark for compliance/virus scanner/whatever security doo-dad of the day, it is a non-starter for many of us. Sure, with enough begging and pleading, anything is possible, but that usually requires Conversations.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Sure, corporate laptops are always a different story. Ideally it's nice to have cross compilation but that might not always be possible. I use a lot of Rust and I really like their OS compatibility out of the box.
- xnyan 3y ago
  >WSL2 is not really a VM though, in the traditional sense, as it has full hardware access It is exactly a VM, and the WSL2 guest does not have full hardware access. The hypervisor can paravirtualize compatible GPUs, but for other hardware (such as USB) this is not possible. Hardware passthrough is also not possible in WSL2.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Sure, however in the traditional sense of most people using VMs, there is no virtualization of GPUs, ie vGPU, and thus no hardware acceleration, if you use something like VMWare or VirtualBox inside Windows. In a hypervisor setup like Proxmox, there is, but the issue is that you need one hardware device per VM, which can get annoying. So paravirtualization via WSL is actually, depending on your needs, superior to either of the previous two cases.
- thrdbndndn 3y ago
  > Technically, when you enable WSL2, the Windows build itself is running through the Hyper-V hypervisor My (very limited) understanding of hypervisor is it by definition is used to run VMs. So I don't get why that makes WSL2 not be counted as a VM, even "technically". I assume you mean once you enabled hypervisor, technically both Windows itself and WSL2 are VMs in parallel?
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    > I assume you mean once you enabled hypervisor, technically both Windows itself and WSL2 are VMs in parallel? Correct, I am referring to the traditional usage of VMs via VMWare or VirtualBox which do not have GPU acceleration, while WSL2 does.
ActorNightly 3y ago
WSL2 is both convenient and is extremely well integrated. Microsoft did a really good job with it and VSCode. Also, in most cases for scientific computing, Mac users are using stuff like Remote SSH in VSCode to work directly on hardware that is running the code, which is pretty much always Linux. Generally, its kinda said that manpower is being wasted on getting things running in Windows or Mac by the software developers. It should be the other way around, have Microsoft or Apple dedicate manpower to port things over and make both systems conform to the Linux standard.
- hurryer 3y ago
  Let's try the same argument, the other way around: it's sad that Linux developers waste time developing the Linux desktop given that almost all usage of Linux is on the server. Linux developers should dedicate manpower to porting Linux desktop software to Windows/Mac which the vast majority of desktop users use. Now you see the problem with your argument?
  - CoolCold 3y ago
    > it's sad that Linux developers waste time developing the Linux desktop Hey, that's unpopular statement on wanna-be hackers resources like HN or Reddit - people feel being creative using Linux on Desktop and feeling control over machine, famous System Administrator Of LocalHost experts ;)
  - Too 3y ago
    For one, Linux is OSS, so contributions made there are available for anyone, forever. I don’t think voluntary developers are very keen on dedicating contributions to a business entity who by the next major release would have stolen your code and hidden it behind ads or some not so smart assistant that requires online connectivity all the time. Linux is also the common ground. If you have to choose ONE system, you would choose Linux. Otherwise you are going to need BOTH Mac and Windows, possibly even more. Just getting the hardware to test that would be a major setback for a small oss contributor. I don’t think you can consider scipy desktop software anyway. The IDE can by all means be, but just let it communicate to some deamon running in WSL, docker or remotely over a standard interface.

That's like asking way don't mac developers work in a linux vm instead of wanting a native build. Because working in a VM is inconvenient and has poor integration.

satvikpendem 3y ago

WSL2 is not really a VM though, in the traditional sense, as it has full hardware access, including the GPU. Technically, when you enable WSL2, the Windows build itself is running through the Hyper-V hypervisor, as is the Linux distribution. In fact, a few years ago, I used Proxmox to basically do the same thing, in order to test cross-desktop apps I was developing for Windows, Linux, and macOS (as a Hackintosh).

fbdab103 3y ago
As someone stuck on a Windows corporate laptop, I can say that WSL2 is definitely not on the approved software list. Unless it installed by default and comes with a big solid green check mark for compliance/virus scanner/whatever security doo-dad of the day, it is a non-starter for many of us. Sure, with enough begging and pleading, anything is possible, but that usually requires Conversations.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Sure, corporate laptops are always a different story. Ideally it's nice to have cross compilation but that might not always be possible. I use a lot of Rust and I really like their OS compatibility out of the box.
xnyan 3y ago
>WSL2 is not really a VM though, in the traditional sense, as it has full hardware access It is exactly a VM, and the WSL2 guest does not have full hardware access. The hypervisor can paravirtualize compatible GPUs, but for other hardware (such as USB) this is not possible. Hardware passthrough is also not possible in WSL2.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Sure, however in the traditional sense of most people using VMs, there is no virtualization of GPUs, ie vGPU, and thus no hardware acceleration, if you use something like VMWare or VirtualBox inside Windows. In a hypervisor setup like Proxmox, there is, but the issue is that you need one hardware device per VM, which can get annoying. So paravirtualization via WSL is actually, depending on your needs, superior to either of the previous two cases.
thrdbndndn 3y ago
> Technically, when you enable WSL2, the Windows build itself is running through the Hyper-V hypervisor My (very limited) understanding of hypervisor is it by definition is used to run VMs. So I don't get why that makes WSL2 not be counted as a VM, even "technically". I assume you mean once you enabled hypervisor, technically both Windows itself and WSL2 are VMs in parallel?
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  > I assume you mean once you enabled hypervisor, technically both Windows itself and WSL2 are VMs in parallel? Correct, I am referring to the traditional usage of VMs via VMWare or VirtualBox which do not have GPU acceleration, while WSL2 does.

ActorNightly 3y ago

WSL2 is both convenient and is extremely well integrated. Microsoft did a really good job with it and VSCode. Also, in most cases for scientific computing, Mac users are using stuff like Remote SSH in VSCode to work directly on hardware that is running the code, which is pretty much always Linux. Generally, its kinda said that manpower is being wasted on getting things running in Windows or Mac by the software developers. It should be the other way around, have Microsoft or Apple dedicate manpower to port things over and make both systems conform to the Linux standard.

hurryer 3y ago
Let's try the same argument, the other way around: it's sad that Linux developers waste time developing the Linux desktop given that almost all usage of Linux is on the server. Linux developers should dedicate manpower to porting Linux desktop software to Windows/Mac which the vast majority of desktop users use. Now you see the problem with your argument?
- CoolCold 3y ago
  > it's sad that Linux developers waste time developing the Linux desktop Hey, that's unpopular statement on wanna-be hackers resources like HN or Reddit - people feel being creative using Linux on Desktop and feeling control over machine, famous System Administrator Of LocalHost experts ;)
- Too 3y ago
  For one, Linux is OSS, so contributions made there are available for anyone, forever. I don’t think voluntary developers are very keen on dedicating contributions to a business entity who by the next major release would have stolen your code and hidden it behind ads or some not so smart assistant that requires online connectivity all the time. Linux is also the common ground. If you have to choose ONE system, you would choose Linux. Otherwise you are going to need BOTH Mac and Windows, possibly even more. Just getting the hardware to test that would be a major setback for a small oss contributor. I don’t think you can consider scipy desktop software anyway. The IDE can by all means be, but just let it communicate to some deamon running in WSL, docker or remotely over a standard interface.