71–80 of 423 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, alternatively, a crowd whose needs aren’t completely met by Linux.
Then why they develop GNU/Linux software to start with?
But maybe they also need to work with stuff thats Windows only. Say they need to produce media assets with the Adobe suite.
Not everything is vimmable.
I don't really understand the use case for WSL. What are the advantages? You could run a full Linux VM and do everything on it on any machine these days. Which is what I do, but I'm just an old school hack. Anyone who uses WSL care to enlighten me? Thanks!
I guess you'll have to use it to "believe" ;) Setup is much less hassle, startup is much faster (one or two seconds) and resource usage is much lower than running Linux in a VM. Also little things like VScode (running as Windows UI application) automatically detecting WSL and setting itself up to connect to the WSL side. To do the same for a VM requires at least to configure the SSL ports on the VM.
I think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. The predecessor, WSL, "just worked" and it was more a less a linux experience for most practical purposes-- and certainly better than hoary old cygwin. This caused a lot of people to believe they could just transition to WSL2, lead on by the promise of an even more performant linux experience. The documentation didn't say anything about complications from attempting this, so a l…
Huh, I had the opposite experience trying to use wsl1 with a rails app, which required lots of workarounds. Postgres never worked for example natively. Several npm modules would fail when running webpack. wsl2 worked perfectly for these cases. I wonder if people are mounting an ntfs volume in wsl2 which is really slow and janky?
> Postgres never worked for example natively.
That's a minor incovenience at worst.
I will stay put in WSL1. If I wished a VM I would have just installed VMWare and run some Linux ISO image from it.
I think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. The predecessor, WSL, "just worked" and it was more a less a linux experience for most practical purposes-- and certainly better than hoary old cygwin. This caused a lot of people to believe they could just transition to WSL2, lead on by the promise of an even more performant linux experience. The documentation didn't say anything about complications from attempting this, so a l…
I don't think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. It wasn't something that was good for the users, but it had a very clear benefit for the people working on WSL: calling it WSL2 allowed them to close WSL1 issues en masse as "fixed in WSL2" and never look at them again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. It wasn't something that was good for the users, but it had a very clear benefit for the people working on WSL: calling it WSL2 allowed them to close WSL1 issues en masse as "fixed in WSL2" and never look at them again.
You can say "fixed in " regardless if the name is numerically sequential.
I think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. The predecessor, WSL, "just worked" and it was more a less a linux experience for most practical purposes-- and certainly better than hoary old cygwin. This caused a lot of people to believe they could just transition to WSL2, lead on by the promise of an even more performant linux experience. The documentation didn't say anything about complications from attempting this, so a l…
I'm actually surprised they can't be used together.
I think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. The predecessor, WSL, "just worked" and it was more a less a linux experience for most practical purposes-- and certainly better than hoary old cygwin. This caused a lot of people to believe they could just transition to WSL2, lead on by the promise of an even more performant linux experience. The documentation didn't say anything about complications from attempting this, so a l…
Cygwin was fast and mostly just worked. I did not find WSL to work well, WSL2 seems more usable. Still has warts but definitely an improvement.
I think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. The predecessor, WSL, "just worked" and it was more a less a linux experience for most practical purposes-- and certainly better than hoary old cygwin. This caused a lot of people to believe they could just transition to WSL2, lead on by the promise of an even more performant linux experience. The documentation didn't say anything about complications from attempting this, so a l…
File system corruption is unforgivable mistake, but FS work is really hard to get right. Even stuff like VMware corrupts shared folders ... wherever they try to bypass a driver translation layer. Just Google for “vmware shared folder corruption”
I think calling it WSL2 was a mistake. The predecessor, WSL, "just worked" and it was more a less a linux experience for most practical purposes-- and certainly better than hoary old cygwin. This caused a lot of people to believe they could just transition to WSL2, lead on by the promise of an even more performant linux experience. The documentation didn't say anything about complications from attempting this, so a l…
If you drop WSL then you get confused branding of what they are. WSL1 and WSL2 make it pretty clear you're getting the Hyper-V thing for the latter and the former is a Linux sys call API layer. I'm actually surprised they can't be used together.