WSL 1 used a translation layer. It intercepted Linux system calls
and translated them on-the-fly into Windows NT kernel system calls.
Lawrence D˜Oliveiro wrote:
Oh, and think of going the other way, implementing a Windows
?personality? on top of Linux: it exists in the form of WINE, and
is working well enough that it is actually stealing market share
from Windows in the gaming market.
Ah, WINE. You bring back bad memories, given I gave up on WINE long
ago ...
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Also note that this article is not about replacing Windows as a
development platform, but about *adding* a Linux/Unix development
environment to it.
So as we've been saying all along: Linux cannot replace Windows, nor
vice versa.
I agree with both Lawrence & Frank in interpretation of this article
<https://www.infoworld.com/article/4196853/how-to-set-up-windows-for-software-development.html>
And, like Frank, I note some sentences in particular such as
"Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) lets you work seamlessly
with Linux on Windows without the clunk and overhead of a VM."
When I saw that sentence, I checked the date of the article, which
surprised me was recent because it was my understanding WSL2 is inside a VM while WSL1 was not inside a VM (the core difference being native vs non-native Linux commands).
Lawrence D˜Oliveiro wrote:
Oh, and think of going the other way, implementing a Windows
?personality on top of Linux: it exists in the form of WINE, and is
working well enough that it is actually stealing market share from
Windows in the gaming market.
Ah, WINE. You bring back bad memories, given I gave up on WINE long ago,
but that's kind of the point, which is it has never been easy to add
another operating system to any operating system, although we all tried.
Maria Sophia, 2026-08-31 17:34:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Also note that this article is not about replacing Windows as a
development platform, but about *adding* a Linux/Unix development
environment to it.
So as we've been saying all along: Linux cannot replace Windows, nor
vice versa.
I agree with both Lawrence & Frank in interpretation of this article
<https://www.infoworld.com/article/4196853/how-to-set-up-windows-for-software-development.html>
And, like Frank, I note some sentences in particular such as
"Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) lets you work seamlessly
with Linux on Windows without the clunk and overhead of a VM."
When I saw that sentence, I checked the date of the article, which
surprised me was recent because it was my understanding WSL2 is inside a VM >> while WSL1 was not inside a VM (the core difference being native vs
non-native Linux commands).
WSL2 *is* a VM provided by the VM subsystem of Windwos which also
provides Hyper-V and was used for the Android Subsystem which got
removed again.
The article writer just confused "no need to start VirtualBox or VMware"
with "no VM" - but of course Linux running in WSL is a VM as well.
Maria Sophia, 2026-08-31 17:34:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Also note that this article is not about replacing Windows as a
development platform, but about *adding* a Linux/Unix development
environment to it.
So as we've been saying all along: Linux cannot replace Windows, nor
vice versa.
I agree with both Lawrence & Frank in interpretation of this article
<https://www.infoworld.com/article/4196853/how-to-set-up-windows-for-software-development.html>
And, like Frank, I note some sentences in particular such as
"Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) lets you work seamlessly
with Linux on Windows without the clunk and overhead of a VM."
When I saw that sentence, I checked the date of the article, which
surprised me was recent because it was my understanding WSL2 is inside a VM >> while WSL1 was not inside a VM (the core difference being native vs
non-native Linux commands).
WSL2 *is* a VM provided by the VM subsystem of Windwos which also
provides Hyper-V and was used for the Android Subsystem which got
removed again.
The article writer just confused "no need to start VirtualBox or VMware"
with "no VM" - but of course Linux running in WSL is a VM as well.
the Windows desktop.
The VirtualBox and VMWare are rooted and display a rectangle which
represents the entire guest OS.
That's a difference in the display part of the hosting software.
On 2026-09-02, Arno Welzel wrote:
Maria Sophia, 2026-08-31 17:34:
The article writer just confused "no need to start VirtualBox or VMware"
with "no VM" - but of course Linux running in WSL is a VM as well.
This reads a lot like those threads that arlow guy used to post... it's
not the same OP is it?
It's more a difference in the operating systems running in the VM and
their Window managers. WSL2 for example requires X11 to make it
possible to have Linux programs running with their own Windows in the
host. With Wayland this is technically impossible without a lot of
work to extend Wayland for this.
On 2026-09-02 21:51, Dan Purgert wrote:
On 2026-09-02, Arno Welzel wrote:
Maria Sophia, 2026-08-31 17:34:
...
The article writer just confused "no need to start VirtualBox or VMware" >>> with "no VM" - but of course Linux running in WSL is a VM as well.
This reads a lot like those threads that arlow guy used to post... it's
not the same OP is it?
You mean Arlen? Yes, Arlen is Maria.
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> writes:
It's more a difference in the operating systems running in the VM and
their Window managers. WSL2 for example requires X11 to make it
possible to have Linux programs running with their own Windows in the
host. With Wayland this is technically impossible without a lot of
work to extend Wayland for this.
That work has evidently been done. The WSL2 display architecture is:
client -> [XWayland ->] Weston -> RDP -> Windows desktop
...with the XWayland part being optional, in the sense that you can run
Wayland clients under Linux and they display in their own independent
window on the Windows desktop.
https://github.com/microsoft/wslg gets into the details.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Could it simply be that the main reason Linux GUI apps work differently in
a VM/WSL is mostly likely more about how the graphical systems are
connected and not because Windows inherently can't display Linux windows?
And today, I can find a review from someone you would recognize, who
put Windows Pro on such a machine and benchmarked it and then
produces a "quote-able number" for "how slow WIndows is". After
Anandtech made a splash all those years ago, with an admission their
first benchmarks were wrong, because they had used the wrong Windows
OS.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:36:56 -0400, Paul wrote:
And today, I can find a review from someone you would recognize, who
put Windows Pro on such a machine and benchmarked it and then
produces a "quote-able number" for "how slow WIndows is". After
Anandtech made a splash all those years ago, with an admission their
first benchmarks were wrong, because they had used the wrong Windows
OS.
I wouldn?t blame them, I would blame Microsoft. That is the most
common (and affordable) OS option it offers that is a bit above the
?Home? edition, naturally that is what people in the real world are
most likely to use. So why shouldn?t it be the version referenced in benchmarks?
There's a couple things about Windows.
1) There is a memory license. I had to deal with that back in
Windows 7, so I could use all the memory in the Test Machine.
Current Windows versions are quite generous on Memory License.
Some of the older OSes, were not generous. Maybe you could buy a
6TB dual socket server motherboard, filled with max RAM, then use
Win11 Pro, and not all your RAM would show up. You could, at the
same time, buy two AMD processors with the "very low core counts"
and then congratulate yourself on not needing Windows
Workstation.
2) Processor groups is a thing. A 96C 192T would have 3*64 groups.
This has something to do with how the scheduler works. If you're
buying big iron, you have to think about these things.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 23:18:33 -0400, Paul wrote:
There's a couple things about Windows.
1) There is a memory license. I had to deal with that back in
Windows 7, so I could use all the memory in the Test Machine.
Current Windows versions are quite generous on Memory License.
Some of the older OSes, were not generous. Maybe you could buy a
6TB dual socket server motherboard, filled with max RAM, then use
Win11 Pro, and not all your RAM would show up. You could, at the
same time, buy two AMD processors with the "very low core counts"
and then congratulate yourself on not needing Windows
Workstation.
On Linux, it costs $0 to support entry-level processor/core configurations. And then you have to pay an extra $0 for the next level up, and so on.
And that?s per-seat.
2) Processor groups is a thing. A 96C 192T would have 3*64 groups.
This has something to do with how the scheduler works. If you're
buying big iron, you have to think about these things.
Again, the Linux licensing goes in steps of $0 for each level. I think
a single node can have up to 2048 CPUs, so a million-CPU super will
need quite a few nodes, at $0 a pop.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> writes:
It's more a difference in the operating systems running in the VM and
their Window managers. WSL2 for example requires X11 to make it
possible to have Linux programs running with their own Windows in the
host. With Wayland this is technically impossible without a lot of
work to extend Wayland for this.
That work has evidently been done. The WSL2 display architecture is:
client -> [XWayland ->] Weston -> RDP -> Windows desktop
...with the XWayland part being optional, in the sense that you can run Wayland clients under Linux and they display in their own independent
window on the Windows desktop.
https://github.com/microsoft/wslg gets into the details.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 28:55:28 |
| Calls: | 221 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 84,565 |