Windows 10 Creators WSL vs. Clear Linux vs. Ubuntu 17.04

[starshipeleven]

Never said it was. They also paid Canonical to help them.

I was just adding to what you said to give some more context, not negating it.

[Snaipersky]

I was just adding to what you said to give some more context, not negating it.

Ah, my bad.

[bug77]

For a beta feature, I'd say this WSL thingy does its job rather well. And God I love a decent shell in Windows.

[edoantonioco]

Now there is no need to use Linux at all for people needing bash. Which is good, time is money

[Snaipersky]

Now there is no need to use Linux at all for people needing bash. Which is good, time is money

Except it's slow for file operations. While its getting "less bad" than initial launch performance and compatibility, it still leaves quite a bit to be desired.

[Kano]

Basically WSL ist a nice thing for single user PCs. But the usefulness is much lower if you need a different admin account (then you get 2 installs). By default not even ping worked (tested with 1607). If you want to use Linux commands for scripting then the direct Windows ports are simpler to use (at least ping works without admin rights). nmap, ping is something i would use. Even if you are able to use mc or other simple things WSL does not help. But of course the basic idea behind it is good. If you are admin and you need to develop Linux scripts on the same PC a Linux VM is still better.

[deppman]

The goal with WSL to replace Macs as the developer platform of choice instead of a preinstalled Linux on a Dell or System76. MS has already lost the server room as Azure clearly shows. Apple gave up on servers around 2005. If I were forced to use something besides native Linux for development I might prefer WSL over a Mac just because all the little variances between Mac dev tools like bsd tools versus gnu tools, ports, etc add up to one serious PITA. It's just all the cool kids are using Macs. OSX isn't an OS, it's a religion.

Luckily, I haven't been forced to use a Windows or Mac for 15 years. I'd like to keep it that way!

[Guest]

Now there is no need to use Linux at all for people needing bash. Which is good, time is money

Windows isn't free, so you make no sense.

[starshipeleven]

Now there is no need to use Linux at all for people needing bash. Which is good, time is money

This person ignores the existence of Cygwin.

[edoantonioco]

Windows isn't free, so you make no sense.

People already use Windows, so this is no problem. Those with no money can still use Linux. The point is that is good to have bash on windows for those that use that OS.

There is no need for windows users to run linux for bash in the same way that its not neccesary to run windows to run powershell.

This person ignores the existence of Cygwin.

WSL and Cygwin are ways to run bash on windows, and its great that both exist. So whats the point?