Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL
-
Something like gnu/windows in a chroot
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
Something like gnu/windows in a chroot
Yeah, that's a good description.
-
What does WSL bring to the table that can't already be done with Cygwin?
-
@dafyre said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
What does WSL bring to the table that can't already be done with Cygwin?
They really aren't similar in any way. Cygwin is about bringing a way to run non-native tooling on Windows. WSL is a virtualiation layer to run things in containers that can't talk to Windows.
-
@dafyre said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
What does WSL bring to the table that can't already be done with Cygwin?
Cygwin requires you to port source code to it. WSL is the opposite: it emulates linux kernel so that you can run unmodified binaries.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@dafyre said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
What does WSL bring to the table that can't already be done with Cygwin?
Cygwin requires you to port source code to it. WSL is the opposite: it emulates linux kernel so that you can run unmodified binaries.
Cygwin isn't Linux at all, which is the key piece. Neither is. But one attempts to look like it, the other does not.
-
It can be quite handy if you're stuck working from a Windows desktop. I remember that I used it in order to get my Test Kitchen setup working at my previous job. Something to do with some things not working with Ruby for Windows. And then it was easy to connect it up to LXD
-
@flaxking said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
It can be quite handy if you're stuck working from a Windows desktop. I remember that I used it in order to get my Test Kitchen setup working at my previous job. Something to do with some things not working with Ruby for Windows. And then it was easy to connect it up to LXD
LOL, it's "kinda handy." Been a while since I used it, and it worked, but I never found it to be "handy". Better than nothing, yes. But handy would be going too far unless it has updated a lot.
Overall, Windows has improved and many of the things like SSH that Cygwin were really useful for are integrated now.
-
From devel stand point cygwin was barely useful while wsl it is handy because it fires up as fast as a container, it allowa you to manage same source and folders as your win machine (devel on win with vs code and run in "linux") but every single tool is an apt or zypper away. And still you can run "legacy" stuff required by people, like office and the so...
For admin I was a fan of putty and winscp now they come with wsl along with the other stuff
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
From devel stand point cygwin was barely useful while wsl it is handy because it fires up as fast as a container, it allowa you to manage same source and folders as your win machine (devel on win with vs code and run in "linux") but every single tool is an apt or zypper away. And still you can run "legacy" stuff required by people, like office and the so...
I'm torn here. I can kind of see where this is handy, but it still isn't really Linux. When would I want this compared to the real thing? Seems like a tiny convenience, in exchange for a bit of risk and complexity.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
From devel stand point cygwin was barely useful while wsl it is handy because it fires up as fast as a container, it allowa you to manage same source and folders as your win machine (devel on win with vs code and run in "linux") but every single tool is an apt or zypper away. And still you can run "legacy" stuff required by people, like office and the so...
I'm torn here. I can kind of see where this is handy, but it still isn't really Linux. When would I want this compared to the real thing? Seems like a tiny convenience, in exchange for a bit of risk and complexity.
You never want this unless you are consteained to stay on windows. It is handier than a vm just this. Plain Linux desktop is way better of course
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
From devel stand point cygwin was barely useful while wsl it is handy because it fires up as fast as a container, it allowa you to manage same source and folders as your win machine (devel on win with vs code and run in "linux") but every single tool is an apt or zypper away. And still you can run "legacy" stuff required by people, like office and the so...
I'm torn here. I can kind of see where this is handy, but it still isn't really Linux. When would I want this compared to the real thing? Seems like a tiny convenience, in exchange for a bit of risk and complexity.
You never want this unless you are consteained to stay on windows. It is handier than a vm just this. Plain Linux desktop is way better of course
I get that it is lighter. But a Linux machine in a VM is SO light. I suppose if you are doing something like VS Code in the container as well...
I guess I can see a use case, but such a limited one. You are forced to develop for Linux, while not being allowed to have Linux, while not having enough resources to run a tiny VM to put Linux on. It's an extremely weird niche case. Twenty years ago, I could see this making sense. Today, who lacks resources for this?
-
@scottalanmiller not so limited. I do both linux and win devel. Win in vm is a pita so you run win bare metal and use linux in vm. Then you grown bored of setting up samba for sharing between vm and host, fire the vm on 1 screen and have another os in the other screen and so on. Now I just fire wsl from win menu and I go. It is simply more seamless to me.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller not so limited. I do both linux and win devel. Win in vm is a pita so you run win bare metal and use linux in vm. Then you grown bored of setting up samba for sharing between vm and host, fire the vm on 1 screen and have another os in the other screen and so on. Now I just fire wsl from win menu and I go. It is simply more seamless to me.
When you say you develop on both, you develop the same things on both, or different things on both?
I share between systems via GIT.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller not so limited. I do both linux and win devel. Win in vm is a pita so you run win bare metal and use linux in vm. Then you grown bored of setting up samba for sharing between vm and host, fire the vm on 1 screen and have another os in the other screen and so on. Now I just fire wsl from win menu and I go. It is simply more seamless to me.
When you say you develop on both, you develop the same things on both, or different things on both?
I share between systems via GIT.
No I've customers asking for linux stuff and other customers asking for win stuff.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller not so limited. I do both linux and win devel. Win in vm is a pita so you run win bare metal and use linux in vm. Then you grown bored of setting up samba for sharing between vm and host, fire the vm on 1 screen and have another os in the other screen and so on. Now I just fire wsl from win menu and I go. It is simply more seamless to me.
When you say you develop on both, you develop the same things on both, or different things on both?
I share between systems via GIT.
No I've customers asking for linux stuff and other customers asking for win stuff.
What causes the need for the Samba shares between them, then? Seems like you'd just keep them disconnected.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller not so limited. I do both linux and win devel. Win in vm is a pita so you run win bare metal and use linux in vm. Then you grown bored of setting up samba for sharing between vm and host, fire the vm on 1 screen and have another os in the other screen and so on. Now I just fire wsl from win menu and I go. It is simply more seamless to me.
When you say you develop on both, you develop the same things on both, or different things on both?
I share between systems via GIT.
No I've customers asking for linux stuff and other customers asking for win stuff.
What causes the need for the Samba shares between them, then? Seems like you'd just keep them disconnected.
While all end in a git service (bitbucket) having code sparse in 2 machines and duplicated tools is not something I like. So I prefer to keep eveything in 1 place use 1 editor and share sources/compiled code to run it. With wsl this is smooth and fast. Not having to devel for win would be a big win.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@matteo-nunziati said in Microsoft Open Sources Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL:
@scottalanmiller not so limited. I do both linux and win devel. Win in vm is a pita so you run win bare metal and use linux in vm. Then you grown bored of setting up samba for sharing between vm and host, fire the vm on 1 screen and have another os in the other screen and so on. Now I just fire wsl from win menu and I go. It is simply more seamless to me.
When you say you develop on both, you develop the same things on both, or different things on both?
I share between systems via GIT.
No I've customers asking for linux stuff and other customers asking for win stuff.
What causes the need for the Samba shares between them, then? Seems like you'd just keep them disconnected.
While all end in a git service (bitbucket) having code sparse in 2 machines and duplicated tools is not something I like. So I prefer to keep eveything in 1 place use 1 editor and share sources/compiled code to run it. With wsl this is smooth and fast. Not having to devel for win would be a big win.
That's what I do, I just don't do Windows
