81–90 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it needs hyper-v, then what's the point? how is it fundamentally different from just running ubuntu in virtualbox with a shared network drive, then? except where the terminal window is?
The tight integration of course. And not having to use Virtualbox.
This seems to run on a VM that dynamically adjusts its RAM size according to the current usage. Does a VM like this have any kind of file cache?
Basically a driver in the Linux guest (hv_balloon for HyperV, but you have the same things for KVM, VMWare etc.) can artificially "inflates" its memory use when detecting too much unused memory and give it back to the host. When the guest needs more memory, the balloon driver will give the memory back. Couple with hotplug memory support and things can be pretty dynamic.
Not sure if they do something more sophisticated for WSL2 though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't tweak anything after installing Debian/RHEL at work or at home. They're stable and flexible. IMO, the folks who spend hours customizing their desktops are usually the ones who don't know linux well and want to feel like they do.
A more positive perspective, they want to learn what they can do. I remember trying every distribution, DE, and window manager when I started with Linux. These days I stick with stock GNOME on Fedora.
Today I feel a lot more confident in using Linux (or any Unix, really), but that’s likely 100% due to having time to spend playing and being curious.
There’s a lot of discussion about an education in computing helping people get ahead economically, but part of me wonders how much proficiency comes from being a child on a Commodore 64 than learning express+mongodb in a few weeks (not that being the latter is a bad thing, either!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I am aware of the Linux emulation in FreeBSD and elsewhere.
How is it pushing the boundaries of OS research then ?
Presenting a Linux syscall interface on top of Windows is a hard task. The systems have fundamentally different approaches to many OS functionalities. In general you cannot just 1:1 map syscalls between the two. I am very familiar with the Windows kernel and fairly familiar with the Linux kernel and I am 100% convinced of this.
This is not to minimize the FreeBSD achievement. However I expect that mapping from Linux to FreeBSD and back would be an easier task. I should note here that I only know generalities about the FreeBSD kernel and would be willing to be educated if that is not the case and done in good faith.
https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/266908-command-prompt-con...
Why would I want to run a proprietary, closed-source implementation of what is supposed to be an open source operating system?
But other people seem to have a reason, based on the comments here and in every submission about WSL.
What are your needs?
Although many people seem to be receiving the WSL2 news well, I am one of the few that feels that we will be missing something important with this new direction. WSL1 was pushing the boundaries of OS research: - a method for having multiple syscall interfaces in a mainstream OS - processes in WSL1 were real NT processes (even if lacking some of the NTOS environment) - direct integration with the rest of the OS withou…
I think they found the boundary of OS research in this case, and a better product is using the actual Linux kernel.