Slashdot Mirror
WLinux, the First Paid-for Linux Distro for Windows 10, Goes On Sale on Microsoft Store (techrepublic.com)
puddingebola shares a report: WLinux is a $20 open-source, Debian-based distribution, designed to run on Windows 10's Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). The WSL allows Windows 10 to run various GNU/Linux distros inside Windows as Microsoft Store apps, providing access to Ubuntu, openSUSE, Debian, Fedora, Kali Linux, and others. The WSL has disadvantages over a running a dedicated GNU/Linux system. For example, there's no official support for desktop environments or graphical applications, and I/O performance bottlenecks, but it is being improved over time. The developers of WLinux describe it as a "fast Linux terminal environment for developers", saying it is the first distribution to be "pre-configured and optimized to run specifically on Windows Subsystem for Linux". Announcing WLinux's availability, Microsoft program manager Tara Raj, called out the wlinux-setup tool, "which allows users to easily set up common developer toolchains, and removes unsupported features like systemd."
Did Microsoft just release a Linux distro without systemd?
Up is down and black is white, the world has gone mad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Would one pay instead of using openSUSE, Ubuntu, or Debian? The value add from these guys must be tiny, maybe donate that $20 to Linux Foundation or some meaningful open source project.
This was my impression. I use MacOS with Windows in a VM. I don't have a Linux VM because I have so many other systems that I can ssh into and do stuff either from the shell or an X app.
But if Windows were my primary operating system and I wanted to use Linux, I don't see why a Linux VM wouldn't be better than this halfway solution.
Exactly. Installing VirtualBox with any of the great Linux distros works like a charm. I almost don't understand why would someone pay for this crippled solution.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Youâ(TM)re confusing WSL (which is Microsoftâ(TM)s system for running Linux distros on windows without using the Linux kernel) with WLinix which is a 3rd-party district that runs on WSL.
WSL is definitely worth it - itâ(TM)s free and the convenience/compatibility trade off is excellent. Sure, youâ(TM)ll need to run a VM if you need to test explicitly Linux kernel stuff like systems or iptables (for example), but for almost everything else, it just rocks. I use it all the time at work.
WLinix is not. Itâ(TM)s a scam intended to part people from their money
Exactly. Installing VirtualBox with any of the great Linux distros works like a charm. I almost don't understand why would someone pay for this crippled solution.
Because it's faster and better in certain scenario's to do it like this.
Faster because:
A. To start it up, it's one click or one word away from a CLI. Virtualbox needs to be installed, spun up, wait till it's booted or restored, and taking up a truckload of RAM and CPU power. Just for running a simple command line tool. VB is total overkill when all you need is a simple CLI tool.
B. The executable runs natively. There's no virtualization overhead. This means full or better speed for execution and network (and other i/o) access.
Also, it works right on your own filesystem. No need for a 'shared folder' with you VM. Your drives are available as-is. And so are your gnu tools. So i can do anything with my files i want, no matter where they reside, without the hassle of copying them around to this shared-with-VM-folder.
Then, as far as security goes.. A VM not really adds any security here, i trust my ubuntu (or whatever) distro the same as on any native linux box. Why would i want to virtualize my gnu/linux environment.
There's other reasons as well, probably others will fill you in here. But to me just the ease and the speed are saving my sanity. Running anything in a VM still sux, even in 2018.
You can also reverse the argument, and compare it with using wine on gnu/linux. That's a pretty fair comparison as WSL and wine actually work in a very similar way. Yes, you could run anything you run with wine in a VM. Sometimes you even have to. But you'd rather not, for various reasons, but mostly because wine usually performs better and is less hassle.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
So how easy to pull the source and compile it? Save $20!
It's not Linux. The Linux Kernel is not run.
At least that's pronounceable.
Is the same as doing heart surgery in the hospital toilet. It can work in theory, but you end up swimming in shit.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
first, Microsoft is pretty much aware that they've lost the server/cloud game to linux (and router. and embed. and smartphones. and SBC. basically, desktop/workstation is the single niche that Microsoft is still holding)
BUT they know they hold the desktop, and would very much to keep holding it.
some of the logic going in the heads of microsoft is that wsl can be a bit of anti-gateway drug.
for all these devs, who have a mostly windows environment but need a bit of unix in their workflow. (devs that need to write code that will end on the linux server/cluster/etc)
until now their main choice were installing a Linux VM (or SSH into a Linux test server. or Switching to Mac OS X or some Linux powered laptop)
and probably some at Microsoft would be afraid that this VM would be a gateway drug: once they got a bit of taste of Linux, some are likely to jump ship and install Linux (or switch to OS X. or exclusively run a Linux VM full screen).
by providing wsl, Microsoft is giving an alternative test environment for the couple of linux needs, while keeping everyone still firmly within their system.
the problem (for them, but advantage for us) is that it might end up the other way around:
wsl is so much limited that eventually it will encourage some to go further and transition to the real deal.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I use Cygwin, but not on Windows 10 because I use WSL for that. Cygwin and WSL are very similar - the difference is the level they interface at. Cygwin is a translation layer between POSIX (or really SUS) APIs and the Win32 API. As far as Windows is concerned, every Cygwin application is just a console Win32 application.
WSL is lower level, and basically implements the Linux syscall interface on the Windows kernel. So applications talk to Linux based libraries which make system calls as Linux would expect, except they're being trapped by the Windows kernel and executed there. They are not technically Win32 applications and don't really have the interactions with Win32 that Cygwin applications would have. This would be the closest to "GNU/kWindows" you can get
Note that the Windows kernel is still enforcing security and other things, so WSL cannot be used to bypass permissions since the kernel is still involved with regular enforcements.
WSL is actually more like the BSD Linux personality - where the base kernel pretends to be Linux to run Linux binaries.