61–70 of 111 posts
Just release Office for Linux and this wouldn't be necessary at all.
That's incredibly short sighted, isn't it? I like to record audio, and use DAWs and plugins/ VSTs. What about artists who use graphic design or video editing programs? Is your use case the only valid one, for whatever reason?
I was initially very excited for WSL2, but I do worry it will require Hyper-V to be enabled. I use VMWare Workstation and it’s a true pain to switch Hyper-V on and off. Also, I cant help but worry that this will somehow be a downgrade in some way... will it be just as integrated? Windows Firewall worked on WSL Pico processes for example.
Yeah one of the big selling points of WSL1 was the lack of VM.
I was initially very excited for WSL2, but I do worry it will require Hyper-V to be enabled. I use VMWare Workstation and it’s a true pain to switch Hyper-V on and off. Also, I cant help but worry that this will somehow be a downgrade in some way... will it be just as integrated? Windows Firewall worked on WSL Pico processes for example.
Yeah one of the big selling points of WSL1 was the lack of VM.
Aside from not have some Linux pseudo-filesystems the bigger issue has been the speed of file operations. I dread having to run `dep ensure` and `yarn install`.
Why not just Hyper-V? Every few weeks I try to figure out how to set up a static IP but I cannot for the life of me. So it takes 1-2 minutes every time I want to reconnect because not only does it get a dynamic IP by default, it is reset every day or so. Need to go into the VM via Hyper-V, get the current IP address, reset /etc/hosts within WSL, reset /etc/hosts within Windows, SSH into VM within WSL. It drives me nuts.
Really looking forward to WSL2 for faster file operations and being able to run all my programs.
I'm surprised, is integrating a Linux kernel with Windows not a GPL violation? Is this a "mere aggregation" situation? Are the Linux kernel and other closed source Windows code at no point linked, or exchanging complex internal data structures?
I was thinking about this issue on binary blob driver like nvidia's. GPL is a clever hack of copyright law. It grant derivative works a copyright permission under the condition of accepting the same license. Now, Windows kernel and Nvidia's binary blob driver exist without relying on Linux kernel at all. How could they be considered as a derivative work in terms of copyright law? Since GPLv2 relies on copyright law,…
Many kernel developers are of a different opinion, and consider Nvidia in breach of their license. The fact that nobody has sued does not mean that they are in the clear. Don't consider the use of a thin shim to be some sort of license firewall.
Anyone other than a select few multinationals probably shouldn't consider legal disagreements with their partners a valid business strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's incredibly short sighted, isn't it? I like to record audio, and use DAWs and plugins/ VSTs. What about artists who use graphic design or video editing programs? Is your use case the only valid one, for whatever reason?
Have you tried Bitwig on Linux?
Looks like a DAW, right? DAWs aren't really the problem - Reaper is on Linux as well, and it's perfectly serviceable. The issue is proprietary software like Helix Native/ HX Edit, and VSTs that have tough DRMs would be borderline impossible to set up. I assume.
I kinda gave up on Linux when I got my XPS 15 though, because there just didn't seem to be a way to have good switchable graphics without reboots, because that's just dumb and impractical, decent battery life, and the OS not freezing every time the touch screen was activate (mainly an issue with Ubuntu and derivatives, for whatever reason). Oh and the fingerprint sensor wouldn't work. Per display scaling seemed finicky in some desktop environments, etc.
Might try it again soon with Pop_os! or something of that sort, but I need this to be a stable machine for work, so dunno :|
Sounds like Docker for Mac for Windows. Might have some of the same shared FS consistency issues from running two full kernels with their own FS caching hierarchies.
I'm surprised, is integrating a Linux kernel with Windows not a GPL violation? Is this a "mere aggregation" situation? Are the Linux kernel and other closed source Windows code at no point linked, or exchanging complex internal data structures?
Given that it requires HyperV it’s running in a manner similar to a VM. That doesn’t require linking and any I/O occurs via the normal channels (CPU interrupts, serial console, etc). This is similar to how running a userland application on Linux doesn’t require the application to be GPL’d because it’s not directly linked to the kernel. While it interacts with the kernel it is not derived from it.
Similarly, your program might statically link against a GPL'd library, but only pass bulk data through a programming interface in a coarse manner, and the result may not be considered linking. The FSF FAQ even explicitly addresses this case.
GPL leaves these kinds of mechanisms blurry and ill-defined (I presume intentionally), it's just that as engineers we are commonly only taught how violations manifest in the usual case.