1/10 no tutorial on how to jump over an office chair.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
648 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
70150 readers
3739 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Making WSL open source could actually lead to some useful contributions and better transparency overall ; and good for Linux tools?
sudo apt-get assorted -lettuce -cheese -onion
Thanks for the kek
Great! With this source code out, I can finally complete the port to Linux. I call it WSL24L, aka "Windows Subsystem For Linux 2, For Linux"
Do you name every FOSS project? This is uncannily close to what an actual open source project would be called, including the logic behind it.
but.. you need to run it on microsoft, which isn't open source....
some who can read code tell me why it sucks ass
This is for WSL2, not for WSL1. WSL2 is just a VM, not a big deal it it's open-sourced. WSL1 is superior to WSL2 in every way. BTW, WSL2 is not a continuation of WSL1, they are being developed in parallel. I still try to use WSL1 whenever possible. For Linux specific features, like systemd dependancy and mounting file systems, I'd use full-featured VM instead of WSL2.
I thought WSL2 had a few specific advantages over WSL1, something about disk writes and/or Docker? But yeah, WSL1 was such a cool concept. My understanding is they implemented all the syscalls and API in it so it's basically native.
I tried to use them, as I do most tools like that. On Windows I have always stuck with the MSYS environment that Git for Windows gives you. It's easy enough to work with and has most everything I care about. Plus it's easy to set up. With wsl it's more like a separate thing, it wasn't as easy to run in place. A lot of times I still used batch or powershell scripts so it wasn't totally bash. Like Docker is easier to use from not bash in Windows because the syntax is so wonky.
But now I don't use Windows at all.
fuck microsoft and windows so hard. had to reinstall that shitshow on my mothers computer because a driver update fucked the whole networkstack... they throw error codes and what not but give no help whatsoever. the conclusion of everyone for every problem is to reinstall windows.... shitshow of an os, keep your dirty hands of linux!! can't wait to nuke it and install linux there and have no windows machine left
I reinstalled Windows and had to shit my pants because I was so disgusted in myself. Fuck windows
nice try. get fucked, microsoft.
Garbage on top of garbage. The true nature of macroshafts desperate grasp to get control of linux.
Its a godsend when you have to use Windows for whatever reason and you can have a functional OS to do things with.
I know there's a lot of hate for Microsoft on Lemmy, but WSL is one of the best parts of Windows. It's really powerful and well integrated to Windows. Since I still can't leave for pure Linux install, I'm glad for WSL.
Microsoft hate is justified.
Funny that the Linux is best part of Windows lmao
The only Windows PC I use is my work computer.
GPO blocked WSL.
I can't even escape to a command line with the right flavour of slashes between directories. For eight hours a day, all hope is lost.
WSL made windows tolerable in the time I had to use a windows machine for work.
macOS is still the better choice for corp approved work, integrates decently with IT systems and is a “real” unix system underneath.
Linux on a corporate desktop is mostly about how well you know the IT guys and do they trust you. And of course the software stack.
Linux on a corporate desktop is mostly about how well you know the IT guys and do they trust you. And of course the software stack.
I would say it depends more on the commitment of the IT admins to support and manage a fleet of Linux workstations. There are Linux "Active Directory" servers, configuration provisioning tools, ways to centrally and automatically rollout updates, etc. It really depends on if the IT guys invest the same amount of effort to support them or not.
2000 people, 3k+ devices and one dude wants a Linux laptop.
Not happening 😀
But it did work in a smaller company of around 30 people, mostly because the IT guy was a Linux user too
Well I worked for a while at a large international corporation that maintained (and AFAIK is still continuing) a managed Linux system, which worked well enough. And there where a lot more people, especially the people that were the most productive, interested in it.
Sure that might have just been a nice island inside the larger company, but the people there were the internal consultants, which often had to pull other projects out of the gutter.
If you over your specialists ways to use the tools they need, you will improve the whole company.
IT just said no for WSL "ask your manager"
My manager barely knows how to read his email
and doesn't understand why I want 3rd screen
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Pretend I'm an idiot (should be easy), and tell me what this all is up in here.
Classic Microsoft Business Strategy
- ~~Embrace~~
- Extend
- Extinguish
Means that now anyone can fork the project and make changes or iterate on it without needing to wait for Microsoft to fix things.
Fanks
Np! Also forgot to add, I haven't checked the license but generally with proper open source projects (as in not just source available) it means that even if Microsoft tries to revert this at any point, having forks of this version and continuing to develop and distribute versions of it is A-OK
I still will never understand why it's not called Linux Subsystem for Windows.
I think it is because Windows has many subsystems, it's just that you don't hear about most of them aside from WSL.
So it is referring to the particular Windows Subsystem (of which there are many) that can run or emulate Linux.
Wait, Windows still has POSIX subsystem or is it only listed for documentation reasons (it was there at least in old NT days)?
load more comments
(16 replies)
view more: next ›