Fedora 42 Aims To Enhance The Windows Subsystem For Linux Experience

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mrg666
    Senior Member
    • Mar 2023
    • 1070

    #21
    Originally posted by cynic View Post

    Firstable, I don't have a use case of running any kind of Windows.

    Secondly, helping people to run Linux inside of Windows is an incentive to never abandon Windows (why would you? it's easier, you can run much more software, you don't have to care for proprietary drivers)

    In the Long run this will harm "desktop linux" because fewer people will be interested in develop or just run "standalone" Desktop distro.

    In a longer time this will impact server too: if developers learn to use/develop something that runs in WSL, they'll start to put WSL in their server rooms.
    These are (i.e. running Linux in Windows) happening since Linux is becoming unavoidable, not the other way around. Development of software that runs in WSL2 makes Linux more popular not Windows since that software will run straight in Linux only as well. WSL is just a Windows optimized virtualization environment for Linux. One can easily do the same with Virtualbox to run a generic Linux image. There are a several other commercial packages like VMware, Citrix, and many more that can do the same. If there is any risk for Linux server market share because of WSL2, that can happen with those other vm software. Didn't happen.

    If there is anything to worry, that should be Microsoft worrying about Linux invading its market share. MS developed specific software that enables Linux environment in Windows now. Who would have thought ten years ago or at the time when Steve Ballmer was calling Linux a cancer, idiotically. I am now just expecting Microsoft to go in active development in Wine to make Windows an environment inside Linux in the following decade. I don't see a future for Windows as it is today at all.

    Comment

    • Jabberwocky
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2011
      • 1205

      #22
      Originally posted by ahrs View Post

      It's different because it integrates with Windows out-of-the-box. I'm sure there are ways to do this manually so that your partitions are mounted at /mnt/c, /mnt/d, etc, automatically, and you can run GUI apps out-of-the-box, you can start a new Windows Terminal pane connected to the VM automatically, etc, but WSL does all of that for you and packaged up nicely. I can only imagine that Windows users use WSL over raw Hyper-V because of these conveniences.
      Yeah, simply launching a terminal and having distro X or distro Y in Windows' look and feel is very convenient indeed. There are some limitations though, networking was the big one for me. HyperV's virtual network manage is a must have when you are not developing simple things on your own.

      Originally posted by cynic View Post

      Firstable, I don't have a use case of running any kind of Windows.

      Secondly, helping people to run Linux inside of Windows is an incentive to never abandon Windows (why would you? it's easier, you can run much more software, you don't have to care for proprietary drivers)

      In the Long run this will harm "desktop linux" because fewer people will be interested in develop or just run "standalone" Desktop distro.

      In a longer time this will impact server too: if developers learn to use/develop something that runs in WSL, they'll start to put WSL in their server rooms.
      This makes sense. I can clearly see why someone would want this. I'm using HyperV a lot these days but my love for QEMU is still strong.

      Originally posted by ahrs View Post

      Unlikely. People will just run Azure Linux, at least that's probably what Microsoft hopes. It doesn't make sense to put WSL in production when you could run the real thing. It's a development tool not a production environment.
      This is already true, if you run games under HyperV then some anticheat systems do not block you. If you do the same with QEMU/KVM then you get blocked. It's not by mistake it's done by design.

      I used to play Rust (the game) using VIFO but that is blocked now. The devs used to have a native Linux client but that's EOL'ed too. The official response is to disable anti cheat and play on servers with anit cheat disabled. If you talk to anyone on steam forums you are automatically 100% a hacker and people will go ape sh1t if you try to explain hyperV vs KVM. You are left with https://www.adventurerust.com/ which disabled anti-cheat and your niche server where your friends play is off limits.

      Comment

      • ahrs
        Senior Member
        • Apr 2021
        • 581

        #23
        Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post
        This is already true, if you run games under HyperV then some anticheat systems do not block you. If you do the same with QEMU/KVM then you get blocked. It's not by mistake it's done by design.

        I used to play Rust (the game) using VIFO but that is blocked now. The devs used to have a native Linux client but that's EOL'ed too. The official response is to disable anti cheat and play on servers with anit cheat disabled. If you talk to anyone on steam forums you are automatically 100% a hacker and people will go ape sh1t if you try to explain hyperV vs KVM. You are left with https://www.adventurerust.com/ which disabled anti-cheat and your niche server where your friends play is off limits.
        People running game servers have got to be the minority. If that's you then by all means run HyperV or Windows Server or whatever it is you have to do to satisfy their bullshit requirements. Personally, I'd just stop playing those games and recommend that your friends do the same, of course that's not terribly practical when they're perfectly happy with all of the bullshit and you're the one that's seen as the outlier. You'd think that the Steam Deck would have changed companies attitude to supporting Linux, but no, some of them are still assholes.

        Comment

        • anda_skoa
          Senior Member
          • Nov 2013
          • 1194

          #24
          Originally posted by cynic View Post
          running Fedora in a VM is just different from running it inside WSL
          So you are saying the difference is that running it in WSL is a better user experience and people who need to have access to Fedora on Windows should suffer VMWare or VirtualBox?

          Isn't it more likely they will opt for a different Linux distribution which runs well in WSL instead?

          Comment

          • cynic
            Senior Member
            • Oct 2011
            • 1089

            #25
            Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post

            So you are saying the difference is that running it in WSL is a better user experience and people who need to have access to Fedora on Windows should suffer VMWare or VirtualBox?

            Isn't it more likely they will opt for a different Linux distribution which runs well in WSL instead?
            no, I just said that I'd prefer that Fedora put its effort to improve the Fedora user experience rather than trying to improve the experience of Windows users.

            Comment

            • cynic
              Senior Member
              • Oct 2011
              • 1089

              #26
              Originally posted by ahrs View Post

              Unlikely. People will just run Azure Linux, at least that's probably what Microsoft hopes. It doesn't make sense to put WSL in production when you could run the real thing. It's a development tool not a production environment.
              I know that it doesn't make sense, but most "administrator" don't actually know what they're doing.
              Most people learn to do things on their workstation and then replicate it in the server room as close as they can.
              Windows / WSL users and developer probably cannot even install a distro on bare metal (or a VM).

              source: I see hundreds of these persons weekly

              Comment

              • Brook-trout
                Junior Member
                • Jul 2022
                • 39

                #27
                Fedora is not a professional distribution. Fedora is not an acceptable developmental platform. It is not recommended by me. I have told my customers if you go with Fedora. I will not be a part of it.

                Comment

                • Jabberwocky
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2011
                  • 1205

                  #28
                  Originally posted by Brook-trout View Post
                  Fedora is not a professional distribution. Fedora is not an acceptable developmental platform. It is not recommended by me. I have told my customers if you go with Fedora. I will not be a part of it.
                  How do you come to that conclusion?

                  I used it professionally for a few years when I had bleeding edge mobile hardware.

                  Linus Torvalds still uses Fedora IIRC

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X