![]() The WSL1 on Windows was relatively similar (but not enough for me) to Wine on Linux. It is effectively their way to have an "integrated Linux virtual machine" inside of Windows. > rather than trying to fit Linux applications in Windows, they're running in their own world and providing integrations into this world. However, during college or early years, having a system that demands some amount of work to get it working has, atleast to me, be crucial in honing my skills. ![]() I haven't had any major trouble in a long time with it. I completely get the notion that when one is a professional he or she shouldn't need to meddle with system level quirks to get a productive environment and a desktop and thankfully, modern Linux is more or less there. ![]() It gave me an intimate comfort with Linux that I just don't have with any other system (including MacOS which I used for about 2.5 years). I had to read up about hardware, learn how to fix installation issues, sometimes recompile the kernel with different options (and hence study them) and a number of other things simply because it didn't "just work". skills to the fact that it was hard to get a Linux distribution running on a cheap PC. If the stack we care about is open-source and runs across many systems, then we still have the freedom.Ī tangential point but a relevant one nonetheless. > Most of us don't want to mess about with the desktop stack. I've found the Winaero blog to be a good source of tools to stop some of the Windows telemetry shenanigans. Granted plenty of companies do this now, for the same profit-driven motivations, but Microsoft goes above and beyond in terms of disabling or even ignoring opt out options. What annoys me most about Microsoft's overarching paternalistic philosophy is is how creepy their telemetry initiatives are. The worst experience for me was having to reformat after the update from Ubuntu 14.04 crashed. However, in fairness I would say that I've spent just as much or more time fixing rolling release issues on Arch/Manjaro, or troubleshooting the package stopping me from sudo apt upgrade. This is definitely a problem especially considering that the shotgun approach to some Windows updates actually hurt the performance of some machines, even breaking Windows on occasion. After using Linuxes for almost two decades now, the notion of the OS taking tens of minutes to self update when all I wanted was to quickly reboot it is unbearable. > The thing that annoys me most on Windows is Windows itself. WSL2 dynamically grows the amount of RAM allocated to the VM, which is quite clever, but I don't know how/if they're going to handle freeing memory again - here the NT kernel really needs to communicate with the Linux kernel.Īnyways, the upshot is that no, Microsoft is not going to take over the world, but perhaps it will be easier to use a Windows laptop which supports all the stupid Enterprise software I need but still have a Linux shell for actual work. This means you can now run Docker on WSL2 for instance, but it's also complicated: Kernels really like to think that they own the world, for instance they keep memory around to use for later. Including a Linux kernel is really the nuclear option: rather than trying to fit Linux applications in Windows, they're running in their own world and providing integrations into this world. The was that the NT kernel was still sufficiently different that the filesystem performance was quite poor and complex applications like Docker required more kernel features than was provided by just the syscall API. WSL1 did what the guys from Illumos and FreeBSD have also done: since the Linux syscall interface is quite stable, the NT kernel can simply implement these syscalls and handle them appropriately. No, Microsoft is not about to remove the NT kernel. The inclusion of a Linux kernel really seems to cause a lot of confusion. I find it fairly easy to work on both Mac OS X, Linux and WSL2 - but not pre-WSL Windows. If the stack we care about is open-source and runs across many systems, then we still have the freedom. This system wasn't as open-source as Linux, but it was good enough: Most of us don't want to mess about with the desktop stack. This really helped the Mac take off among hackers. In the mid 2000's the Mac really took off due to being a good-enough Linux replacement on the command line, while taking care of all the hardware integration and providing a sleek desktop experience. This is really Microsoft catching up to the Mac in terms of integration with the open-source ecosystem which importantly drives the web.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |