← Back to context

Comment by cogman10

3 years ago

With the rise of WSL, I have a real hard time justifying wanting a linux desktop.

I've got a VM with a full linux distro at my fingertips. Virtualization has gotten more than fast enough. And now, with windows 11, I get an X server integrated with my WSL instance so even if I WANTED a linux app, I can launch it just like I would if I were using linux as my host.

It does suck that the WSL1 notion of "not a vm" didn't take off, but at the same time, when the VM looks and behaves like a regular bash terminal, what more could you realistically want?

13 comments

cogman10

Reply
blibble  3 years ago

> what more could you realistically want?

some privacy, no telemetry, no ads, and the computer only applying updates that I choose and only rebooting when I ask it to?

(I know it's a lot to ask for these days...)

  • CoolCold  3 years ago

    I opted in telemetry to ensure OS vendor has data on usage, issues, crashes. The same for say Firefox.

    I believe providing it helps vendors to improve and fix issues quicker.

vetinari  3 years ago

WSL2 is very limited; from not having a "proper init" to having NAT-ed network, it is fine for running simple docker containers, but proper linux it is not.

Comparing it to the real linux is like comparing powershell prompt to full windows.

  • pxc  3 years ago

    > [WSL] is fine for running simple docker containers

    WSL is passable for running Docker containers, and that is if you add a ton of complicated socket forwarding machinery and Window-side service management automation to it, which is what Docker Desktop does.

    Without that, WSL2's lack of a proper init system means that you literally don't even have a way to automatically start `dockerd`. And you have the same story for the integration of that Docker daemon with the other Linux WSL hosts.

    > Comparing it to the real linux is like comparing powershell prompt to full windows.

    True, although in a way this comparison is unflattering to Linux because PowerShell is generally better made, better documented, and less hostile to automation or customization than most software that comes with Windows.

    • vetinari  3 years ago

      > WSL is passable for running Docker containers, and that is if you add a ton of complicated socket forwarding machinery and Window-side service management automation to it, which is what Docker Desktop does.

      That's exactly the reason why I mentioned simple docker containers.

      Once I needed to make some of them work with macvlan/ipvlan, and docker desktop on mac and windows were both completely unusable.

  • CoolCold  3 years ago

    Say I'm webdev (I'm not) and proper Linux for me is that one which can start Flask dev env, and I can copypaste things from stackoverflow. Totally fine for my needs to call it proper Linux.

    • vetinari  3 years ago

      Webdev is about the only scenario, in which it would be ok; funny how you mentioned exactly this one.

      However, for webdev, native linux would be fine as well.

pxc  3 years ago

WSL is really only a viable alternative to dual-booting for Windows people who have merely dabbled in Linux desktop usage. Admittedly, this is likely the only case Microsoft cares about.

But if you're used to Linux, Windows is not only borderline unbearable in a cultural way, but you're likely to notice that a ton of important pieces of WSL (and the wider Windows CLI environment) are broken, inadequate, missing, or just different in a way that makes them unattractive to longtime Linux users.

> I've got a VM with a full linux distro at my fingertips. [...] when the VM looks and behaves like a regular bash terminal, what more could you realistically want?

To name a few, things, limited strictly to WSL:

  - your distro's normal init system / a standard way to configure persistent services
  - binfmt_misc interop that works consistently (for example, some applications cause hangs for unclear reasons, when I pipe them into `clip.exe`
  - integration for services that involve running agents and/or hardware access (e.g., Docker, GnuPG, SSH)
  - WSLg support on Windows 10,  whose absence is purely artificial (what version of Windows my corporate laptop runs is not up to me)
  - passable performance with files on the Windows side so that basic amenities like a Git prompt in your shell don't suck
  - bridged networking or some other advanced networking configuration

  • CoolCold  3 years ago

    > - your distro's normal init system / a standard way to configure persistent services

    > - bridged networking or some other advanced networking configuration

    Sounds like something in sysadmin's language.

    I hope WSL will keep within the current paradigm, not trying to replace your Proxmox test lab.

gabereiser  3 years ago

Yeah, WSL(2) was a huge huge win for Microsoft. It seems silly, but it’s kept thousands of devs from dual booting…

  • blibble  3 years ago

    I dunno

    it's quite possible it'll work out as well as IBM's OS/2 running Windows apps did

  • CoolCold  3 years ago

    Since when saving time and increasing productivity became silly? Not even saying getting rid of Linux VMs, shared folders and similar annoying things is a good thing overall.