The Windows Subsystem for Linux is now open source

My development is mainly Windows and I prefer Linux host with Windows VM guests. The experience is more stable and I can revert to a snapshot when Windows or Microsoft product update brakes something or new test configuration does. It also allows to backup and retain multiple QA environments that are rarely used, like a client's Oracle DB. It is nice being able to save the VM state at the end of the week and shut it all down so you can start the next right where you left off. Cannot do that when your development environment is the bare metal OS. Windows has known issues of waking a sleeping laptop.

In the same spirit if "it depends", there are other options that may work for people with different Linux/Windows balance points:

* Wine is surprisingly good these days for a lot of software. If you only have an app or two that need Windows it is probably worth trying Wine to see if it meets your needs.

* Similarly, if gaming is your thing Valve has made enormous strides in getting the majority of games to work flawlessly on Linux.

* If neither of the above are good enough, dual booting is nearly painless these days, with easy setup and fast boot times across both OSes. I have grub set to boot Linux by default but give me a few seconds to pick Windows instead if I need to do one of the few things that I actually use Windows for.

Which you go for really depends on your ratio of Linux to Windows usage and whether you regularly need to mix the two.

> Forscan for Ford vehicles also has to run under Windows.

I've successfully run it with WINE. Thought, my Forscan executable was 3 years old or so and that may have changed, but I doubt it.

Did you know that Forscan works flawlessly under Wine if you're not using Bluetooth?

As everyone said, WSL2 is actually virtual machines and it is what most people are actually using now. That said, I feel the need to chime in and say I actually love WSL1 and I love Windows NT the kernel. It bums me out all the time that we probably won't get major portions of the NT kernel, even an out-of-date version, in some open source form.

I like Linux, and I use Linux as my daily desktop, but it's not because I think Linux or even UNIX is really that elegant. If I had to pick a favorite design it would be Windows NT for sure, even with all its warts. That said, the company behind Windows NT really likes to pile a lot of shit I hate on top of that pretty neat OS design, and now it's full of dubious practices. Automatic "malware submission" on by default, sending apps you download and compile yourself to Microsoft and even executing them in a VM. Forced updates with versions that expire. Unbelievable volumes of network traffic, exfiltrating untold amounts of data from your local machine to Microsoft. Ads and unwanted news all over the UI. Increasing insistence in using a Microsoft account. I could go on and on.

From a technical standpoint I do not think the Linux OS design is superior. I think Linux has some amazing tools and APIs. dmabufs are sweet. Namespaces and cgroups are cool. BPF and it's various integrations are borderline insane. But at its core, ... It's kinda ugly. These things don't all compose nicely and the kernel is an enormous hard-to-tame beast. Windows NT has its design warts too, all over, like the amount of involvement the kernel has in the GUI for historical reasons, and the enormous syscall surface area, and untold amounts of legacy cruft. But all in all, I think the core of what they made is really cool, the subsystems concept is super cool, and it is an OS design that has stood up well to time. I also think the PE format is better than ELF and that it is literally better for the capabilities it doesn't have w.r.t. symbols. Sure it's ugly, in part due to the COFF lineage, but it's functionally very well done IMO.

I feel the need to say this because I think I probably came off as a hater, and tbh I'm not even a hater of WSL2. It's not as cool as WSL1 and subsystems and pico processes, but it's very practical and the 9p bridge works way better than it has any right to.

Thanks for pointing this out.

WSL 2 is actually virtualized despite the name

It used to be. They moved to a VM.

Turns out that it's easier to emulate a CPU than syscalls. The CPU churns a lot less, too, which means that once things start working things tend to keep working.

WSL1 was a subsystem. WSL2 is mostly a VM.

They had to give that up because it was too slow, I think for IO. Unfortunate.

For me, the best part of running Linux as the base OS is not having to deal with Windows.

No ridiculous start menu spam; a sane, non-bloated operating system (imagine being able to update user space libraries without a reboot, due to being able to delete files that other processes still have opened!); being able to back up my data at the file level without relying on weird block-level imaging shenanigans and so much more.

How is inverting the host/guest relationship an improvement on that?

But you still get the worst of the Windows world, which is more than many are willing to deal with. I was using windows for years as my main gaming OS, but after they announced W11 being the only way forward. Switching to Linux on the desktop was like a breath of fresh air. I'll leave it at that.

If I were to run an OS on a VM it's gonna be windows, not Linux

It's deeper but let's not overblow it.

I think the two fairly deep integrations are window's ability to navigate WSL's filesystem and wslg's fairly good ability to serve up guis.

The filesystem navigation is something that AFAIK can't easily be replicated. wslg, however, is something that other VMs have and can do. It's a bit of a pain, but doable.

What makes WSL nice is the fact that it feels pretty close to being a native terminal that can launch native application.

I do wish that WSL1 was taken further. My biggest grip with WSL is the fact that it is a VM and thus takes a large memory footprint. It'd be nice if the WSL1 approach panned out and we instead had a nice clean compatibility wrapper over winapi for linux applications.

[dead]

Methods I know are using qemu/Wine/proxmox/VirtualBox.

You can make your own clean version, legally, with this file. https://schneegans.de/windows/unattend-generator.

I get customers and most people don't know about it but it's kind of ridiculous that techy people in a tech forum don't know how to do it.

There is no flavor of Windows 11 that is acceptable. Even the UI itself is a disaster. A cornucopia of libraries and paradigms from React Native to legacy APIs as if an interdimensional wave function of bad ideas had collapsed into an OS, but with ads.

I replaced my m1 with a snapdragon laptop running Win11 and upgraded that to pro. For what I do with it, it runs great with very long battery times, for less than Apple quoted to repair the m1. I don't use the copilot features and haven't seen any ads so far, except maybe for office during setup.

Some of them are.

But the increasing market share of Macs and even Linux these days plus the ever increasing of OSS initiatives from Microsoft points out that Microsoft knows a lot fewer of their users are as captive as they were in the 90's, for example.

Maybe just for your specific preferences. Terminal is plenty fine. Vertical taskbar on the right is straight up user preference. PowerToys for an app starter? Like Alfred? The start search does a decent enough job of that. Folder Size is nice, but enumerating all files is very taxing.

>Windhawk for a vertical taskbar on the right

Huh? Windows supports vertical taskbar.

Superior hardware with terrible software. Also they straight up artificially limit their hardware so they don't cannibalize their sales, which is slightly understandable, but they do it in the dumbest ways. My SOs MacBook Air can only do one external monitor, even though it has the same specs as her work Pro. Oh and good luck actually getting that external display to work, I swear only like 50% of USB-C docks work on the platform.

> "Microsoft doesn't make any release from the Long-Term Servicing Channel available for regular consumers. The company only makes it available to volume licensing customers, typically large organizations and enterprises. This means that individual users cannot purchase or download Windows 11 LTSC from Microsoft's website."

https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/windows-11/what...

>The problem is Windows IO filters

Not the biggest issue of them, 'find' and 'git status' on WSL2 in a big project is still >100 times slower on windows dev drive which avoids those filters than it is with WSL 1 on dev drive.

WSL 1 on regular ntfs with defender disabled is about 4x slower than WSL1 on dev drive, so that stuff does cause some of it, but WSL2 feels hopelessly slow. And wsl 2 can't share memory as well or take as much advantage of the filesystem cache (doubling it if you use the windows drive in both places I think, unless the network drive representation of it doesn't get cached on the WSL2 drive.

This. WSL was SO much more interesting in v1 times.

I liked the networking in WSL1 more too

I'm guessing they use plan9 because distros already ship support for it, and it's super simple compared to NFS? It doesn't seem like CIFS/NFS would be any faster, and they introduce a lot more complexity.

While I can see the subtle distinction you're trying to draw people's attention to (NTFS is not the problem, filesystem operations generally on Windows are the problem) I have to say it seems like a distinction without a difference in real terms. They made a range of changes that seem to produce more complicated code everywhere because the overhead of various filesystem tasks are substantially higher on this OS vs every other OS.

But in the end they had to get the OS vendor to bless their process name anyway, just so the OS would stop doing things that tank the performance for everybody else doing something similar but who haven't opened a direct line up with the OS vendor and got their process name on a list.

This seems like a pain point for the vendor to fix, rather than everybody shipping software to their OS

I don't know how it's set up. That's kind of my point though. I have to now be an expert in Linux and Windows to debug this stuff, which is a waste of my time as someone who's job it is to develop (server, i.e. Linux) software. I had exactly zero issues when I was using Fedora. At one point my company made all of the Linux users move off (we do now have an IT-supported Linux image, but I haven't found the time to re-set up my laptop and don't fully trust that it will work without a bunch of trouble/IT back-and-forth because they also made Windows users start using passkeys), and since then I've seen way more issues with Windows than Linux (e.g. one day my start menu just stopped reacting to me clicking on programs), in addition to things like ads in the lock screen and popups for some XBox pass thing that I had to turn off, which is just insane in a "professional" OS. A lot of days I end up having to hold down the power button to reboot because it just locks up entirely.

OSX was a bit janky with docker filesystem slowness, homebrew being the generally recommended package manager despite being awful (why do I sometimes tap a cask and sometimes pour a bottle? Don't tell me; I don't care. Just make it be "install". Also, don't take "install" as a cue to go update all of my other programs with incompatible versions without asking), annoying 1+ second animations that you can't turn off that make it so the only reasonable way to use your computer is to never maximize a window (with no tiling support of course), and completely broken external monitor support (text is completely illegible IIRC), but Windows takes jank to another level.

openssh has been an optional windows component for... almost a decade now? including the server, so you can ssh into powershell as easily as into any unix-like. (last time I set it up there was some fiddling with file permissions required for key auth to work, but it does work.)

On the other hand sometimes the GUI on WSL decides to break and you have to restart the whole thing.

I don't think people are using WSL to avoid problems with dual booting. Dual-booting has become about as simple as it can be, thanks to UEFI, but it's still not exactly fun to have to close all of your open apps to switch to another OS to run just one app.

But not having to dual boot and just get both worlds at the same time definitely beats having to dual boot.

> You get much nicer window decorations if you use the wayland support instead of X11.

Wayland supports window managers ?

Who deals with this? All this is fine out of the box on a modern Linux distro.

You need new reasons to hate Linux, because all those issues were solved a while ago.

Denuvo counts each proton version as a unique activation, might help you avoid this issue going forward

Untrue. OS/2 for windows leveraged the user’s existing copy of windows for os/2’s compatibility function instead of relying on a bundled copy of windows, like the “full” Os/2 version.

Os/2 basically ran a copy of windows (either the existing one or bundled one) to then execute windows programs side by side with os/2 (and DOS) software.

>for the reasons you say

That's not what I say, that's what the former PM Lead of WSL said. To be fair, Windows Services for UNIX was just Unix services for Windows. Probably the same logic applied there back then: they couldn't name it with a leading trademark (Unix), so they went with what was available.

Sure we can speculate that 3% is not news. Again, it’s a one way conclusion: I concede if they want to axe a project deliberately, that could show up in the layoff, but projects won’t incidentally get impacted because of a 3%. The causal relationship would be the opposite.

If you mean stack ranking, the hard 20/70/10 bucketing was in force >15 years ago, but even then it didn't mean that those 10% automatically get fired.

Have you worked at any of these large companies? It’s really easy actually (practically, not emotionally). It’s usually very obvious and there’s consensus who the bottom 10% are. Politics would affect promotions much more than layoff.

The MIT license scrunches the first two clauses of the 3-clause BSD license into a single clause, and omits the third clause (the nonendorsement clause, which is already generally implied). As a practical matter, most of the basic "simple" open source licenses are functionally identical.