Microsoft Brings 'Windows Subsystem for Linux 2' to Window Server 2022 (theregister.com) 23
With the latest preview patch, Windows Server 2022 now supports WSL2 Linux distros, the Register reports:
The move ends an odyssey that began with the arrival of the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) 2 on Windows 10 several years ago and with users' calls for Windows Server to get the same treatment. The change is also somewhat of an about-face from Microsoft. In 2021, in response to pleas from users to backport the tech to Windows Server 2019, [Principal program manager for Windows Server Jeff] Woolsey described WSL in early 2021 as "fantastic for dev" and "perfect for Windows client" but warned: "If we put it in Windows Server, people will use it in production scenarios for which it isn't intended." The approved path was to spin up a full Linux VM. Quite a bit heftier than the lighter-weight WSL2.
Signs of Microsoft listening to feedback showed up earlier this year, as Microsoft Program Manager Craig Loewen "clarified" that WSL2 distros would work on Windows Server version 2004 and 20H2, although the LTSC versions found in many data centers remained free of WSL2. Until this week, that is.
TechRadar provides some context: WSL 2, which was originally released in May 2019 (opens in new tab), uses virtualization technology to run an open source Linux kernel inside of a lightweight utility virtual machine (VM). This empowers Windows users to run popular Linux apps such as Docker. Microsoft claims that unlike a traditional VM experience — which it says can be slow to boot up, is isolated, consumes a lot of resources, and requires your time to manage it — WSL 2 does not have these attributes....
The KB5014021 update is currently optional, but will be automatically rolled out to users next month....
Windows Server updates have not been without issues in recent months, however, with Microsoft having to address various problems caused by the January 2021 Patch Tuesday updates. The company issued an emergency out-of-band update to address bugs that forced domain controllers to reboot endlessly, broke Hyper-V, and rendered ReFS volumes inaccessible while showing them as RAW file systems.
Signs of Microsoft listening to feedback showed up earlier this year, as Microsoft Program Manager Craig Loewen "clarified" that WSL2 distros would work on Windows Server version 2004 and 20H2, although the LTSC versions found in many data centers remained free of WSL2. Until this week, that is.
TechRadar provides some context: WSL 2, which was originally released in May 2019 (opens in new tab), uses virtualization technology to run an open source Linux kernel inside of a lightweight utility virtual machine (VM). This empowers Windows users to run popular Linux apps such as Docker. Microsoft claims that unlike a traditional VM experience — which it says can be slow to boot up, is isolated, consumes a lot of resources, and requires your time to manage it — WSL 2 does not have these attributes....
The KB5014021 update is currently optional, but will be automatically rolled out to users next month....
Windows Server updates have not been without issues in recent months, however, with Microsoft having to address various problems caused by the January 2021 Patch Tuesday updates. The company issued an emergency out-of-band update to address bugs that forced domain controllers to reboot endlessly, broke Hyper-V, and rendered ReFS volumes inaccessible while showing them as RAW file systems.
It's amazingly useful technology, and well built. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, due to security concerns, it'll take the commercial sector a long time to adapt, if ever. All of the big boys I've worked for (and that's more than a few) disable WSL as a matter of group policy because there's very little which can be done to control what a user does in a WSL environment.
Windows itself can be reasonably secured using group policy, but there is nothing Windows group policy can do about the content of a Docker Container. If I'm a malicious employee, a WSL2/Docker Linux inst
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VirtualBox, for all its faults, works, and the only issue with it is that Oracle bought Sun.
That's only a problem is you run the Extension Pack, which you wouldn't for server-related functions. The rest is open source.
Re: (Score:3)
You're either uninformed, being intentionally disingenuous, or intentionally dishonest. I'm not sure which.
I've worked for IBM, Visa, Google, Goldman Sachs, Abbott Laboratories, and other players large and small. Yes, I had local admin on my winbox at all those places. WSL was still blocked by group policy. Had I found a way to implement WSL using local admin authority, I'd have been identified and discharged for intentional violation of clearly expressed company policy.
Incidentally, I was also forbid
Re: (Score:1)
Linux is one of the worst offenders in this regard. As the kernel is fully detached from most user space processes, it's not possible to prohibit for example launching an executable / script. As most of the UI is also from different vendors, there's no easy means to ensure they all comply with the restricted user operations policy. Hell, Linux in particular doesn't support NFS v4 permissions natively. Which me
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree re: Linux permissions. Between the three sets of rwx(s), groups, "chmod g+s", and umask, you can pretty much do what you need on a multi-user Linux box. The extended ACLs are nice as well, but I seldom have to use them.
What I WILL give you is the state of user access across different boxes. It's broken in SMB, SSHFS, and NFS. But what you CAN do is set up centralized user control where your users and groups have only one number and all the servers are slaves to the user list. That makes acce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course once WSL2 was stable, for me as a developer it made all the sense in the world to make a formal request for WSL2 and Ubuntu to be installed on my governmen
Pigeon-Rat (Score:2)
Windows subsystem on Linux (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Intended" (Score:3)
but warned: "If we put it in Windows Server, people will use it in production scenarios for which it isn't intended."
I read this and the only way I can translate it is that they would make less money off of Windows Server. Is that unfair?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why??? (Score:2)
Sure it was a fun project for people involved and was a good research activity, but why ?
What would be the reason of using WSL instead of Linux Directly ? Running Linux on top of what tends to have a lot of security issues seems only useful to keep windows-only admins employed :)
Re: (Score:2)
and THAT'S dead on target, at least for those of us who understand what's going on. However, as long as PHB's get to dictate from on-high what desktop OS will be used by employees, this will be a discussion.
I agree with you technically. One former employer of mine migrated to a Linux desktop. They actively encourage team members roll up their own VM's on their desktop as needed to provide support. Newly created VM's must comply with all corporate policies regarding attaching a host to the corporate net
Re: (Score:1)
Probably just marketing. If you just want a Linux user-space, cygwin already gives you that. If you need performance, WSL is a pretty bad idea. And for security? Forget it. This is a solution looking for a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Low watt ( and low pay) windows click and point admins and their managers think this means they can stay in their comfort zone to run Linux apps.
Can't imagine having Windows under a Linux server, some of the KB updates we've have at work have made blue screens on our windows servers, haven't see those babies for a while. No thanks, I left that windows server shit behind in the late 90s, good riddance.
Will they fix (Score:2)
the bug with symlinks not being accessible when browsing \\wsl$ from Windows? It works fine with VirtualBox/Samba.
the answer (Score:2)
Desktop: If you want Windows, use Windows. If you want Linux, use a Mac. If you want headaches, use Linux.