OSDev.org

Read through this topic several times recently, and have made further "discoveries"/verifications on my end.

1) For a certain someone, this is MY thread, and I dictate that it shall be about HOW to use WSL. If you want to discuss WHY, start your own damn thread and GTFO!!!!! (Since mods seem unresponsive about this)

2) grub-pc-bin solved all of my issues with grub (and therefore with Bare Bones and Meaty Skeleton) So everything is good! yay! Anyone with a "vanilla" Windows 10 that would like to test some build instructions?

3) I have updated my user "page" with a better list of requirements (mainly removing a thing or 2 and including grub-pc-bin) feel free to take a look: WSL Notes

- Monk

P.S. If you want to say that you are right, and someone (or everyone) else is flat wrong, this is not the forum for you (not my decision, but what I think.)

SpyderTL wrote:But, I will give them the benefit of the doubt in this case, as they have recently made quite an effort to open source a lot of that "proprietary" platform, as long as they maintain strict compatibility at the kernel level, so that switching back to Linux in the future is a trivial option.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that they're open-sourcing a "lot" of their proprietary platform; more like a few random userspace utilities here and there. And what they're clearly not making an effort to open-source is WSL. If it was based on a stock Linux kernel then it's not like they can lock you into much, but it's not and as soon as you're dealing with proprietary code from Microsoft there's plenty of room for them to do Bad Things with it, either now or in the future. I wouldn't build a system on a proprietary "Linux-compatible" subsystem with the hope of being able to migrate to Linux in the future. For that matter, I wouldn't build a system on a proprietary "Linux-compatible" subsystem at all. The real problem with WSL is that it's encouraging people to use Windows when those people would otherwise have been using real Linux (and should be using Linux). It's another place in the industry where people can now "spread the virus" and say "oh, you don't need to get Linux, just use the Microsoft version" like they already do about web browsers and office software (which, between the two, give Microsoft an almost-total monopoly over the end-user market). It's Microsoft's way of winning back all the Windows users who have been "lost" (read: freed) to Linux, and who potentially would be in the future.

onlyonemac wrote:The real problem with WSL is that it's encouraging people to use Windows when those people would otherwise have been using real Linux (and should be using Linux).

Wait. It's almost like you are saying that Linux is better than Windows.

Hi,

onlyonemac wrote:The real problem with WSL is that it's encouraging people to use Windows when those people would otherwise have been using real Linux (and should be using Linux). It's another place in the industry where people can now "spread the virus" and say "oh, you don't need to get Linux, just use the Microsoft version" like they already do about web browsers and office software (which, between the two, give Microsoft an almost-total monopoly over the end-user market). It's Microsoft's way of winning back all the Windows users who have been "lost" (read: freed) to Linux, and who potentially would be in the future.

I'm fairly sure that the only reason Microsoft created WSL is because they wanted to sell their "cloud" (Azure) to people that use Linux; and found out that it was cheaper to reimplement the entire Linux kernel API than it was to play the "which distro broke what this week Whac-A-Mole" game.


Cheers,

Brendan

onlyonemac wrote:If it was based on a stock Linux kernel then it's not like they can lock you into much, but it's not and as soon as you're dealing with proprietary code from Microsoft there's plenty of room for them to do Bad Things with it, either now or in the future. I wouldn't build a system on a proprietary "Linux-compatible" subsystem with the hope of being able to migrate to Linux in the future. For that matter, I wouldn't build a system on a proprietary "Linux-compatible" subsystem at all.

If I thought that their Linux "implementation" was somehow incompatible (or could be incompatible in the future), then that would be a deal breaker. Do you have any specific information about current or future compatibility issues? Or are you saying that you think that they may find a way to make their Linux-compatible "adapter" somehow non-Linux-compatible in the future?

Or are you saying that you only want to run open source software on your machine? I can get behind this as an argument, given the privacy concerns and risks that we have today, and which will only get worse going forward. But I see WSL as an avenue to help people move away from Windows. I don't see current Linux users deciding to move to Windows because of this "feature". Obviously you aren't making the switch.

SpyderTL wrote:Or are you saying that you think that they may find a way to make their Linux-compatible "adapter" somehow non-Linux-compatible in the future?

It is entirely possible. This is Microsoft, after all, who, like it or not, have a history of making things ever-so-slightly incompatible with industry standards and thereby forcing users to use their products. As this is a proprietary codebase controlled entirely by Microsoft, there's nothing stopping them from introducing "enhancements" that make software able to work only with WSL, and not true Linux systems.

SpyderTL wrote:Or are you saying that you only want to run open source software on your machine? I can get behind this as an argument, given the privacy concerns and risks that we have today, and which will only get worse going forward.

There are many reasons that I encourage the use of open source software, and this is one of them, yes.

SpyderTL wrote:But I see WSL as an avenue to help people move away from Windows. I don't see current Linux users deciding to move to Windows because of this "feature".

I see it as something that is encouraging potential Linux users to stay with Windows (i.e. people who would have otherwise switched to Linux are now more likely to say "I'm not going to bother installing Linux, I'll just use the one that's built into Windows"). That's exactly what's happening in this thread.

SpyderTL wrote:Obviously you aren't making the switch.

No, I use Linux already.

I see it as something that is encouraging potential Linux users to stay with Windows (i.e. people who would have otherwise switched to Linux are now more likely to say "I'm not going to bother installing Linux, I'll just use the one that's built into Windows"). That's exactly what's happening in this thread.

Perceiving it like that, I'd say Cygwin is the same. I think, it is though more likely to be a reason for a [non-potential] Linux user to switch.

Brendan wrote:I'm fairly sure that the only reason Microsoft created WSL is because they wanted to sell their "cloud" (Azure) to people that use Linux; and found out that it was cheaper to reimplement the entire Linux kernel API than it was to play the "which distro broke what this week Whac-A-Mole" game.

This is precisely why they created WSL. Azure runs Linux on around a third of its machines (and growing), and Microsoft couldn't care less which OS you use as long as it's on their hardware (just like any other cloud provider), so making things easier for Linux users can only help them. WSL gives those Linux-on-the-server users more options when developing and deploying their applications, along with e.g. Visual Studio support for Linux cross-compiling and remote debugging.

And it goes other directions, too- Microsoft has a bunch of Android, iOS, and OS X apps, all of which benefit from compatible Linux tooling. The easier it is for a developer to target Windows, Linux, and anything else (consoles, for example) from a single machine, the more likely Windows/Xbox/Azure are to be included in that set of platforms. Microsoft has no incentive to embrace-extend-extinguish via WSL- that would be counterproductive at this point.

A very thorough overview for those interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqaWIn4y26E

Rusky wrote:WSL gives those Linux-on-the-server users more options when developing and deploying their applications

i.e. makes Linux server users more likely to use Windows/proprietary WSL and thus move away from the perfectly adequate open-source Linux kernel.

Rusky wrote:The easier it is for a developer to target Windows, Linux, and anything else (consoles, for example) from a single machine, the more likely Windows/Xbox/Azure are to be included in that set of platforms. Microsoft has no incentive to embrace-extend-extinguish via WSL- that would be counterproductive at this point.

You honestly think Microsoft would rather encourage developers to target non-Microsoft platforms than just eliminate those platforms entirely?

It's obvious - Microsoft have got over 90% of the desktop operating system and productivity software markets (at least in the western world). Now they want to gather up the rest - the mobile users (Windows phones/tablets), the server users (Azure/WSL-as-proposed-by-some-users-on-this-forum), and all but the most serious of desktop Linux users (WSL). Let's not mention cloud storage and email ("outlook.com" probably sounds like a nice domain for your email address, to most people).

Rusky wrote: And it goes other directions, too- Microsoft has a bunch of Android, iOS, and OS X apps, all of which benefit from compatible Linux tooling. The easier it is for a developer to target Windows, Linux, and anything else (consoles, for example) from a single machine, the more likely Windows/Xbox/Azure are to be included in that set of platforms.

so cute. windows needs inclusion!

linuxyne wrote:so cute. windows needs inclusion!

lol, exactly. If developers aren't targeting Windows, it's probably because they're sensible enough to know better. It's when developers do target Windows (especially to the exclusion of everything else) that one needs to be concerned.

Just for posterity sake, since onlyonemac is spending so much time "saying" that Microsoft is evil without any proof or anything.

onlyonemac, how many Open Source Projects have you released and/or contributed to? (That are useful in the least...)

Because Microsoft has 51 pages of repositories that anyone can view on GitHub right now. (See: https://github.com/Microsoft)

- Monk

onlyonemac, how many Open Source Projects have you released and/or contributed to? (That are useful in the least...)

Are you comparing a single person with a corporation?

Why is this topic still in here? I think is should be moved to "General Ramblings".