4 ms·

Installing WSL was much harder than 'download and double click EXE' when I last did it. The 'app' shop installed something botched I now can't easily get rid of

by cess11 2y ago

Installing WSL was much harder than 'download and double click EXE' when I last did it. The 'app' shop installed something botched I now can't easily get rid of and then I had to do a few Powershell incantations to actually get an install that boots a Linux-like terminal. If I had to use Linux under Windows more than a few hours per year I'd Hyper-V it instead. I'd also guess 'telemetry' pumps out all one does in WSL, while this might leak less of what the kids are doing.

ryao 2y ago
I doubt that, since telemetry slows things down and it has been found that software runs faster under WSL than native Windows. A quick search found this, which shows a substantial performance difference for the same thing between native Windows and WSL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/vtc0fy/wsl2_faster_than_windows/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/vtc0fy/wsl2_faster_th... There have been others who observed the same in the past (and with WSL1), although I do not have a list. I recall reading libc telemetry hooks on Windows that are absent as being claimed to be the cause, but I cannot find the page where I read that. The Reddit post has the alternative suggestion that process creation speed is the cause.
- cess11 2y ago
  Suggesting that the entirety of the performance difference between Windows and WSL is due to telemetry is by far the weirdest MICROS~1 apologia I've come across. Performance on my bare metal Linux machines is even better. Do you consider this to be sufficient proof that WSL has telemetry hooked into it?
  - ryao 2y ago
    No, since Windows is less efficient in general.
    - cess11 2y ago
      OK, so you agree that your argument was flawed.
Firehawke 2y ago
Installing WSL2 as of the latest versions of Windows is as simple as "wsl --install" to get a basic Ubuntu install set up. It'll do all the steps, including turning on all necessary Windows features, in a single command.

by cess11 2y ago

ryao 2y ago

I doubt that, since telemetry slows things down and it has been found that software runs faster under WSL than native Windows. A quick search found this, which shows a substantial performance difference for the same thing between native Windows and WSL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/vtc0fy/wsl2_faster_than_windows/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/vtc0fy/wsl2_faster_th... There have been others who observed the same in the past (and with WSL1), although I do not have a list. I recall reading libc telemetry hooks on Windows that are absent as being claimed to be the cause, but I cannot find the page where I read that. The Reddit post has the alternative suggestion that process creation speed is the cause.

cess11 2y ago
Suggesting that the entirety of the performance difference between Windows and WSL is due to telemetry is by far the weirdest MICROS~1 apologia I've come across. Performance on my bare metal Linux machines is even better. Do you consider this to be sufficient proof that WSL has telemetry hooked into it?
- ryao 2y ago
  No, since Windows is less efficient in general.
  - cess11 2y ago
    OK, so you agree that your argument was flawed.

Firehawke 2y ago

Installing WSL2 as of the latest versions of Windows is as simple as "wsl --install" to get a basic Ubuntu install set up. It'll do all the steps, including turning on all necessary Windows features, in a single command.