I find it very handy to be able to work in both Linux-like and Windows environments without having to use a Virtual Machine. The biggest pain has been the separation of filesystems. UNC path is ok but this will make things considerably more practical..
I have always felt a bit strange about Microsoft calling these distributions of Linux running on WSL but their are really more so distributions of GNU. There isn't a real Linux kernel in there. Now I understand Microsoft is building their own replica entirely -- is that true?
Windows could really benefit from its own VFS layer.. This makes it possible to have multiple types of filesystems, including remote ones, that all work perfectly alike from application's point of view.. This has not been the case with Windows, as the API for shared filesystems is different with different quirks than the regular one.
I am guessing one day, perhaps, Windows will start using some of the concepts in the Linux kernel that allow abstractions like this.
The WSL (v1) emulates the Linux kernel, so the terminology MS is using isn't completely wrong, other than being completely backwards from how normal people would have named it. The Linux subsystem for Windows would be more logical than what it's called by MS.
The WSL2 is based on HyperV and will boot a real Linux kernel in a VM. So it really will be Linux.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings:
(5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in
here?
Good Idea (Score:2)
I find it very handy to be able to work in both Linux-like and Windows environments without having to use a Virtual Machine. The biggest pain has been the separation of filesystems. UNC path is ok but this will make things considerably more practical..
I have always felt a bit strange about Microsoft calling these distributions of Linux running on WSL but their are really more so distributions of GNU. There isn't a real Linux kernel in there. Now I understand Microsoft is building their own replica entirely -- is that true?
Windows could really benefit from its own VFS layer.. This makes it possible to have multiple types of filesystems, including remote ones, that all work perfectly alike from application's point of view.. This has not been the case with Windows, as the API for shared filesystems is different with different quirks than the regular one.
I am guessing one day, perhaps, Windows will start using some of the concepts in the Linux kernel that allow abstractions like this.
--Matthew C . Tedder
Re: (Score:3)
The WSL (v1) emulates the Linux kernel, so the terminology MS is using isn't completely wrong, other than being completely backwards from how normal people would have named it. The Linux subsystem for Windows would be more logical than what it's called by MS.
The WSL2 is based on HyperV and will boot a real Linux kernel in a VM. So it really will be Linux.