The name of that thing is so confusing. It's an alternative to wine, right?
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
13358 readers
516 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's a Windows Subsystem that is responsible For (Running) Linux. Yes, everyone thinks it should have been called Linux Subsystem for Windows.
Nope, it uses the MS hypervisor to run a VM of Linux with a deep filesystem and networking integration
So it's like Wine but worse.
And for Linux instead of Windows.
It's more like QEMU actually.
Maybe you mean the opposite to wine? The 1st WSL (called V1) was a sort of simulation of the Linux terminal, but wasn’t too compatible. The current version (V2) is a full virtual machine that kind of shares the network and file system automatically, so it can run basically any Linux command line tool.
I'm more surprised that it wasn't already on WSL, WSL has been out for /awhile/ now. I used to use it for cross platform development before I moved my gaming rig over to Debian
Either way, glad to see it. 👌
very true
Does this really expand to Windows users? As a non-technical user, this is the first I've heard of WSL and I'm sure I'm not alone.
I think WSL is pretty much a developer thing in reality
That makes sense. I definitely could see a use case for developers, but I don't see many average pc users having a need for or even being aware of this service.
It is pretty popular if you want Linux tools on Windows
Avoid gWSL though, it is a unstable mess
I actually just canned windows in the past month. I'm not a developer or "power user," but I ran back to Linux due to the screen capture and A.I. nonsense that Microsoft has been pursuing recently. I have been very happy with my recent experience on Linux and don't imagine going back to Windows in any fashion. There have been incredible strides made since I was last on Linux, about 15 years ago.
It's for developers to not switch dev machines from Windows. The average user would be far better served with Mint or Ubuntu versions of Linux for Windows like experience.
As a technical user, I think of WSL as almost exclusively for technical users. It's not really intended to enable normal users to run Linux programs, and more as an excuse to convince companies to keep developing on Windows. If the devs say "we need to write backend code for Linux servers, so we need our dev machines to run Linux" then management sets them up with linux, while the rest of the company uses windows. But if MSFT says "hey look, you can develop code for Linux in windows, and you can even deploy it in windows on our azure servers" then management says "great, everyone can use windows" and keeps buying those licences.
It does more to make windows accessable to Linux users.
And really speeds up Java compilation.
I swear WSL already had Arch.
wow, it didn't exist before? like, I've seen arch and Debian included more than anything else and somehow it was missing?