13 ms·

I would love to run GUI Emacs using this, so this is great news for me. At the same time, does anyone both love WSL, but is also scared about Microsoft's strat

by cwxm 6y ago

I would love to run GUI Emacs using this, so this is great news for me. At the same time, does anyone both love WSL, but is also scared about Microsoft's strategy here? I'm at the point where I have a main desktop computer that I use for general purpose and gaming, and WSL has been great for me to also be able to do few-compromises coding work on it (previously had an arch linux partition but was tired of having to reboot to access it).

greggyb 6y ago
I run GUI emacs under WSL with an X server running on Windows.
- mwill 6y ago
  I do this as well and it works so well I sort of forget that's how I do it until I try to change something or someone brings it up.
  - fovc 6y ago
    Have you managed to get an icon you can double click to open? I have to start WSL shell, `emacs &` then ^D. Not a huge pain, but would like a Taskbar icon
    - wazzaps 6y ago
      You could do `bash.exe -c emacs`
    - greggyb 6y ago
      I put a small XFCE panel next to my windows taskbar. I put launchers for any windowed programs I want to launch. My .bashrc checks if the host is WSL. If the host is, then it checks for a running XFCE session. If there isn't one running, it launches the settings daemon and panel.
MikusR 6y ago
The worst thing Microsoft can do is bring more people to Linux.
- squarefoot 6y ago
  > The worst thing Microsoft can do is bring more people to Linux. They're doing exactly the opposite. Just wait for the day some new killer Linux apps encourages, or even requires, WSL rather than native Linux to run properly, or to run at all. Imagine a window-manager/desktop-environment using the same exact windows primitives and behaviour but integrated into the WSL Linux OS. That thing would be the killer app a lot of Linux users would dream of, it would for obvious reasons run only under WSL, and would take away a huge number of non-hardcore Linux users. "Why learn a new user interface when you can keep the same you're used to, and more importantly write Linux software that will make full use of it?". I desperately want to be proved wrong, but I'm really pessimistic about WSL: it is to Linux exactly what WINE is to Windows, and will kill Linux pretty much everywhere except servers and embedded systems, just as WINE has killed Windows on many desktops where the real thing wasn't necessary.
  - mimixco 6y ago
    Microsoft has always been about making devs happy so they will sell software to users. If devs are happy with Linux, WSL will make it easier for them to sell those apps to Windows users. The community of people who develop software is small compared to the audience that runs software, and those people are mostly on Windows. MS is doing this to keep devs happy and keep them shipping apps for Windows, even if the devs live entirely in Linux land.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      Microsoft wants to sell Cloud to developers. More than 50% of servers on Azure are Linux. It's that simple. Obviously developing for Linux in WSL does nothing to keep developers shipping apps for Windows.
  - wvenable 6y ago
kortex 6y ago
Yup. Definitely feels like "how much dev market share can we capture by just putting a nix inside our OS?" Make it performant enough to not even seem like a vm. Then get people to stay on the platform. I still find windows usage painful and sluggish compared to ubuntu and left in the dust by xubuntu so I'd rather have the reverse with a windows vm.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Windows is not painful and sluggish compared to Linux GUIs. It's on par. If your GUI is sluggish it's because you're letting stuff like letting crappy antivirus and malware detection run in the background or you have an underpowered machine for what windows needs. Sure Xubuntu will trash Windows on an old P4 however on modern hardware they'll be fairly equivalent with windows having a slight edge due to better video acceleration. I use both daily and they're both responsive environments.
  - eitland 6y ago
    > Windows is not painful and sluggish compared to Linux GUIs. It's on par. 30% longer compile times than on Linux on the same hardware. Using git takes time compared to being instantaneous. Running "hello world" written in .Net takes 3-5 seconds compared to <<1 second on Linux on the same hardware. > If your GUI is sluggish it's because you're letting stuff like letting crappy antivirus and malware detection run in the background or you have an underpowered machine for what windows needs. As I mentioned above, Linux is amazingly much faster on the same hardware! And brand new 2018/2019 hardware at that when I measured last time. That said antivirus is a real problem. Part of the problem is that mandatory Windows OS often signals sysadmins that doesn't care, so you often get tragically bad antivirus, possibly misconfigured at that.
    - fomine3 6y ago
      I/O on Windows is definitively slower point and it affects git performance but OP says about GUI. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18783525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18783525
chrisan 6y ago
> but is also scared about Microsoft's strategy here? Scared of what? I have spent years either in Window's inferior environment for development or having to dual boot or running something like VMWare workstation. I do that because linux is inferior for gaming/entertainment. I have never "enjoyed" a single linux desktop environment, I spend the majority of my time coding or running stuff on terminal. I'm in my 40s and tired of going back and forth between the two. WSL has been a godsend Linux has as much to be scared about from Microsoft as Microsoft has to be scared of Linux gaming
- d3nj4l 6y ago
  > I do that because linux is inferior for gaming/entertainment. It really isn't any more. I play a lot of games and only one so far has refused to work well on Linux, and that's one which is emulated on Windows so I can't blame Linux too much for it. And that's on a laptop with nvidia's power-saving shit thrown into the mix. As for entertainment, aside from Firefox having issues with hardware acceleration, most of which have either been fixed or are being fixed, I haven't faced any in Linux that I haven't on Windows. That said, I don't use HDR, so I can't vouch for that. On the other hand, I've had significant performance issues with WSL, especially on disk use, and I don't really care for windows update bugging me all the time and the telemetry. I jumped on board Linux with Pop!_OS and it's been a delight. I used to be just as negative on Linux, but I have been so, so happy I've been proven wrong.
  - kyriakos 6y ago
    No matter how you see it, games are primarily made to run on Windows and the other OS's are an after thought. I am not saying it didn't get better but gaming on windows is natural and requires no special configuration. A normal user who wants to play games if he's not already on a gaming console the next best option is Windows.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      > No matter how you see it, games are primarily made to run on Windows and the other OS's are an after thought I think this hasn't been true for some time for studio games. Most (big budget) games are ported to windows from consoles, except for indie titles
pjmlp 6y ago
No, because: 1 - throughout all these years Linux developers have been giving money to Apple instead of supporting Linux OEMs. Using a BSD flavour to target Linux 2 - Apparently many like the extend done by Google with Android and ChromeOS
- Santosh83 6y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong but unlike your point 2, doesn't WSL make the Linux kernel obsolete in the long run? That'd be the Extinguish part which is still far beyond the horizon but isn't it something worth thinking about?
  - maple3142 6y ago
    This may be true in WSL 1, but WSL 2 uses actual Linux kernel, it won't be a problem. Instead, what will be affected is Linux Desktop.
  - thejsa 6y ago
    Not so much with WSL 2, which Microsoft are focusing on at the moment; WSL 2 runs a real Linux kernel in a lightweight Hyper-V VM with lots of jazzy integration services.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    That was a short, interesting test but WSL is now a Linux VM with nice integration in Windows. So no, it doesn't obsolete the kernel in any way. If anything, abandoning WSL1 can be considered proof that MS with doesn't have enough interest in replacing the Linux kernel.
  - kyriakos 6y ago
    Microsoft knows that most server applications end up running on Linux and not on Windows. The Linux kernel is not going anywhere, MS is ensuring it doesn't lose more developers to competing OSs. At the same time staying loyal to MS probably also means if you need Linux on a the cloud you'll opt for Azure instead of AWS or Google.
  - jakogut 6y ago
osigurdson 6y ago
I think their strategy is to be a better competitor to macOS for development use cases.
- nathanlied 6y ago
  Yeah, pretty much. I don't think they're trying to do the embrace-extend-extinguish thing here at all, at least not in a "willful" way. Devs I know of that use macOS do it for the "Linux without the jank" aspect - essentially as an "it just works" quasi-Linux distro. If Windows could provide the same experience, or at least a very similar one, I do believe a good number of devs 'raised' on Windows would stay. In my lifetime, I've seen more people convert from Windows->macOS due to wanting to do dev work in a "Linux-like" environment than anything else. It makes sense for MS to want to mitigate that bleed-off.
  - adsjhdashkj 6y ago
    Yup, this is my exact use case. I'm needing more hardware and my multiple Macbook Pros are getting old - but i'm not satisfied enough with Mac these days to drop $4k on upgrading. Apple would have to make me really happy with the software (read: bug free, primarily) for me to spend the upscaled costs in their ecosystem. So now i'm installing Windows and Linux, comparing them and the ease of use. I don't want _any_ driver problems, frankly i just want the OS to get out of my way. Historically, Linux has given me such a terrible experience with things like "my BT doesn't work, my sound doesn't work, my monitor doesn't work" that switching away from Mac was viewed as an impossibility. Now however, i see a way out, and i'm taking it. I've experimented with WSL2 and it's shockingly good so far. I'll likely install PopOS this weekend to see if i experience problems. If i even hint a problem in Linux, i'll likely revert back to Windows. Mac is losing it's lunch imo. But, i get to build a workhorse of a PC for the same price i would have given Apple - so i'm happy.
    - GekkePrutser 6y ago
      Mac isn't losing its lunch. We're just not their target users base anymore. Why sell to these demanding power users wanting complex stuff when you can sell to the rich consumer who just wants to dick around on Facebook and play with their iDevices all day :P
AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
Can't you install emacs natively in Windows?
- contravariant 6y ago
  You can, although most packages are written assuming Linux and getting stuff like tramps to work (which requires paths that are apparently impossibly to type in windows), is a bit of a challenge. Of all the issues I've had with emacs about 80% of them could be traced to running emacs on windows. Not through any fault on windows side mind (except possibly the insane decision to use a different path syntax).
  - Siira 6y ago
    That insane decision has been made deliberately to make competitors incompatible.
    - enzo1982 6y ago
      No it hasn't. [0] Unless you want to claim the Unix developers deliberately chose the slash as a path separator to be incompatible with TOPS-10. That could be. [0] http://www.os2museum.com/wp/why-does-windows-really-use-backslash-as-path-separator/ http://www.os2museum.com/wp/why-does-windows-really-use-back...
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      That insane decision has been made deliberately to make competitors incompatible. Not inconceivable. After all Windows is called w32 in Emacs not win32 as is common everywhere else because RMS couldn’t bear to think “win” in association with MS!
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  You can but it's extremely hacky to get it all working. It's butter smooth just like Linux on WSL as long as you don't mind running it in a terminal. I use a fairly complicated DOOM emacs install without issues.
Shoue 6y ago
If you're like me, and just don't want to shut off Linux to play some games, I'd recommend looking into virtualising Windows and PCI passthroughing your GPU. I just change the channel on my monitor to switch between Linux and Windows, but if you have two monitors you can dedicate one to each OS. You don't need a hardware kvm switch, evdev lets you swap keyboard/mouse control between host and guest OS with LCtrl+RCtrl, and audio goes through Pulseaudio. You get to avoid using WSL and get the full Linux experience without compromising gaming – with few exceptions: the more extreme anti-cheat software detects VM usage, and that applies to a very small set of AAA games.
- aembleton 6y ago
  What virtualisation software did you use to achieve that? I spent a few days trying to get it to work on virtual box, vmware and kvm. I gave up and install the Windows to dual boot.
  - chousuke 6y ago
    You can get it to work with VMWare and KVM, but in most cases you'll run into problems with hardware. Very few motherboards (and GPUs) actually properly implement the required functionality, so if you don't consider this use case during hardware selection, chances are you won't be able to get it to work in a stable manner. A motherboard claiming support for VT-d is no guarantee that it is able to do anything useful with it.
wayneftw 6y ago
I’m not scared of their strategy because I’m aware of it. I’m scared of adding all the unknown problems of Windows to all the problems of Linux and then having to depend on that on a daily basis. So, I won’t use it. It’s too easy to buy a used computer, slap a new SSD and RAM in it and run Manjaro Linux. I recommend an HP Elite 800 from Amazon for $200-$300. Then if you need Windows it’s just one KVM/RDP click away.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  That's an irrational fear. WSL2 runs on top of a very well vetted VM environment and has it's own well walled off sandbox. If you are trapped in windows like I often am it's a sufficient replacement for the real thing in 98% of use cases. Windows 10 is extremely stable on good hardware from well known companies. Just disable all the garbage that runs in the background. If you buy bottom barrel you will get what you paid for unless you're extremely lucky; same goes for linux.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    No, it's irrational to think that you won't have to deal with the problems of two different OSes when you're running two different OSes. Run only one of them and you'll only have to deal with the problems of one of them on your daily driver. It's really that simple. For work, I put Windows out to pasture on a different workstation - I hardly ever need it at all (I keep it around for for testing and debugging Windows-specific issues and when I want to use SSMS instead of Azure Data Studio or Visual Studio instead of VS Code which is pretty much never), but when I do it's there. For games, I've always had separate dedicated Windows machines. I run Windows on multiple systems and I'm absolutely aware of it's stability but also it's problems. One of my biggest issues with it is that it ignores my active-hours and starts updating right in the middle of me working or playing. It's happened time and again on pretty much all of my Windows machines. Another huge Windows problem is that I don't have any control over many things. For instance - they keep re-pinning shit to the taskbar after an update. Or, they change my settings after an update. Or, they constantly nag me with popups or ads disguised as notifications or start menu icons. > If you buy bottom barrel you will get what you paid for unless you're extremely lucky... OK, not sure how that's relevant. I recommended buying a very solid, albeit refurbished desktop unit from a major manufacturer that I happen to have been running three instances of for years now without problem. > ...same goes for linux. What does that even mean? My years using Linux as a desktop have been filled with far less drama than the years I ran Windows as my workstation.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
For me VMs have worked a lot better than WSL on windows. I'm not sure why everyone is so opposed to them these days. Near native performance, and you get all the linux widgets. Sure it takes up a little more disk space and memory but if you're an engineer those are minimal costs compared to other factors.
- manigandham 6y ago
  WSL2 is a VM. It’s running a real distro in Hyper-V with some integrations for the file system and docker to be shared across.
  - 20thCB 6y ago
    True. It's unfortunate that most people don't seem to realize this, based on WSL1. MS really haven't marketed WSL2 that well.
gigatexal 6y ago
Well yes. This is phase 2 of 3 the first being embrace (see Microsoft loves Linux) and the current one being extending. Only here they’re extending Windows to cater to Linux use cases. The next and final phrase is extinguish. If Windows becomes equivalent to running a Linux distribution but can also run the entire Windows ecosystem of applications not to mention all your games the way they were meant to be played, not via proton or any other translation layers, then what will be the point of greater Linux adoption among businesses and governments? Licensing? All Microsoft would have to do is make Windows free and make all that revenue back on upselling Azure and/or Office. Personally I tried WSL2 out and it was pretty good. The problem was I was still running Windows and I absolutely can’t use to UI to save my life. I loathe it. I’m a huge fan of tiling window managers and Regolith’s my current DE of choice. And lucky for me my games run in proton, I work on backend systems such that I don’t have any dependencies in on anything that runs on Windows (Google docs for office work). So I would not be WSL’s target audience.
- randomfool 6y ago
  Step 3 is not extinguish- step 3 is exposing APIs or programs in Linux which only work when executing on Windows.
- oblio 6y ago
  Yes, Microsoft is out to extinguish desktop Linux. They're afraid that 2021 could be the year of desktop Linux. Wait, wasn't that 1999? 2000? 2001? ... Everyone stopped caring when mobile platforms became dominant.
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  To me, what matters most is privacy and freedom. -> Open-source transparency of code, data, and all that happens with it. (Including the ability to fully control and see what's happening in your system at the network level, like OpenSnitch - https://github.com/gustavo-iniguez-goya/opensnitch https://github.com/gustavo-iniguez-goya/opensnitch). I don't see any of MSFT's actions threatening this on a really big picture level. It's always been and always will be up to 'the community' to build and make Linux and free software what it is. Linux, especially Linux Desktop, is wonderfully flourishing right now, and I don't think it's because 'MS hasn't offered a more compelling alternative to Linux' in the cloud. More largely, it's because we've built what we've wanted. Maybe I'm naive about what we've been ungratefully depending on. If so, I'd settle for a mildly cautious and watchful neutral ground. All I can say is, please contribute to Linux and FOSS if you can. I do.
BuildTheRobots 6y ago
> is also scared about Microsoft's strategy here? Terrified. I'm expecting the next round of secure boot to come, this time without the ability to disable or add your own keys. To the people that complain they can't boot linux, I expect the response to be "but you can run linux from windows, silly!"
- FpUser 6y ago
  It is I think possible but not very likely
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  I've been hearing hysteria about "Microsoft is going to block people from booting Linux!" since like 2005. They don't even do it on their own line of hardware. If they wanted to do it, they would have by now.
  - pedro2 6y ago
    They removed the requirement of Secure Boot being deactivable from OEM requirements.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      When was that ever a requirement?
      - the8472 6y ago
        Surface models running Windows RT (windows on arm) had locked secure boot where you couldn't replace the master keys.
        DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        "Surface RT" / "Windows RT" was never intended to be sold by other OEMs though.
texasbigdata 6y ago
Also kinda unstable. WSL2 maybe 2 months post release bricked (edit: as in had to wipe and restore) my Lenovo laptop. Wasn’t too bad to reinstall but still seems a bit immature.
- EE84M3i 6y ago
  How did WSL2 ruin your windows install? As an aside: I normally use "bricked" to mean "entirely unusable as a computing device"
  - texasbigdata 6y ago
    BSOD and could not restore. To install wsl you have to enable windows insiders beta patches as part of install process. Had to external drive boot and wipe.
    - fomine3 6y ago
      Installing insider preview (beta) is done with your responsibility, not responsible by WSL2. Of course WSL2 is now supported in Windows stable.
m463 6y ago
step 2: extend? or is it just trying to make a decent machine people want to use? It could be emergent behavior. One faction in microsoft does this, then later another faction might take advantage of the situation. In any case, one of linux's best characteristics is to be "checks and balances" against common software.
tomrod 6y ago
I wonder if they will relearn that fighting anti-authoritarian tinkerers (aka hackers) is a losing strategy.
nobody9999 6y ago
>WSL has been great for me to also be able to do few-compromises coding work on it (previously had an arch linux partition but was tired of having to reboot to access it). Cygwin[0] is a lot more mature and has a huge set of supported applications. [0] https://cygwin.com https://cygwin.com
- manigandham 6y ago
  WSL1 was a reimplementation of Linux system calls and offered most of what modern tools needed. WSL2 is a complete Linux kernel/distro running in a Hyper-V virtual machine. Cygwin is no longer needed when you have real Linux.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Cygwin is no longer needed when you have real Linux. I'd say that depends on your use case. For many folks, WSL is an excellent idea. I've played around with it and it doesn't give me anything over what I already have using Cygwin. Also, Cygwin+userland is much lighter weight than an integrated VM like WSL2. A lot of the question is what you want/need. I need a decent shell with a fairly complete unix userland. X is nice to have as well. That such functionality seamlessly integrates with Windows is great. But I don't need a dev environment (although Cygwin provides that as well) for unix on my Windows box. I'm sure there are other use cases/software that requires a full blown Linux kernel/environment, but they don't apply to me. I just use VMs (on separate hardware) for that. And unless you actually need a full-blown kernel, rather than a specific set of tools, cygwin provides a lightweight, mature and well supported alternative. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that Cygwin is unix. Rather, I say that for a significant set of use cases, Cygwin can be a superior solution. It all depends on your requirements.
    - nycticorax 6y ago
      This this this. I also find that, for me, cygwin is a better solution for what I want: A bash shell and a decent set of unix-like command-line tools, that (critically) uses the same filesystem as Windows programs do. I've honestly been kind of perplexed by all the excitement around WSL. A lot of people seem to say they want it for "development", by which I guess they mean web development. And I could see WSL being a nice alternative to running a full Linux VM for web development. But I don't do web development (mostly). I just want a unix-like shell and tools on my Windows box. And I don't want to have to think about whether the files I'm creating and working on live in Linux-land or Windows-land.
dapithor 6y ago
I basically already do this with vcxsrv (launch vcxsrv with -ac, start wsl2, export DISPLAY, run emacs) and gui displays!

by cwxm 6y ago

greggyb 6y ago

I run GUI emacs under WSL with an X server running on Windows.

mwill 6y ago
I do this as well and it works so well I sort of forget that's how I do it until I try to change something or someone brings it up.
- fovc 6y ago
  Have you managed to get an icon you can double click to open? I have to start WSL shell, `emacs &` then ^D. Not a huge pain, but would like a Taskbar icon
  - wazzaps 6y ago
    You could do `bash.exe -c emacs`
  - greggyb 6y ago
    I put a small XFCE panel next to my windows taskbar. I put launchers for any windowed programs I want to launch. My .bashrc checks if the host is WSL. If the host is, then it checks for a running XFCE session. If there isn't one running, it launches the settings daemon and panel.

MikusR 6y ago

The worst thing Microsoft can do is bring more people to Linux.

squarefoot 6y ago
> The worst thing Microsoft can do is bring more people to Linux. They're doing exactly the opposite. Just wait for the day some new killer Linux apps encourages, or even requires, WSL rather than native Linux to run properly, or to run at all. Imagine a window-manager/desktop-environment using the same exact windows primitives and behaviour but integrated into the WSL Linux OS. That thing would be the killer app a lot of Linux users would dream of, it would for obvious reasons run only under WSL, and would take away a huge number of non-hardcore Linux users. "Why learn a new user interface when you can keep the same you're used to, and more importantly write Linux software that will make full use of it?". I desperately want to be proved wrong, but I'm really pessimistic about WSL: it is to Linux exactly what WINE is to Windows, and will kill Linux pretty much everywhere except servers and embedded systems, just as WINE has killed Windows on many desktops where the real thing wasn't necessary.
- mimixco 6y ago
  Microsoft has always been about making devs happy so they will sell software to users. If devs are happy with Linux, WSL will make it easier for them to sell those apps to Windows users. The community of people who develop software is small compared to the audience that runs software, and those people are mostly on Windows. MS is doing this to keep devs happy and keep them shipping apps for Windows, even if the devs live entirely in Linux land.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    Microsoft wants to sell Cloud to developers. More than 50% of servers on Azure are Linux. It's that simple. Obviously developing for Linux in WSL does nothing to keep developers shipping apps for Windows.
- wvenable 6y ago

kortex 6y ago

Yup. Definitely feels like "how much dev market share can we capture by just putting a nix inside our OS?" Make it performant enough to not even seem like a vm. Then get people to stay on the platform. I still find windows usage painful and sluggish compared to ubuntu and left in the dust by xubuntu so I'd rather have the reverse with a windows vm.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Windows is not painful and sluggish compared to Linux GUIs. It's on par. If your GUI is sluggish it's because you're letting stuff like letting crappy antivirus and malware detection run in the background or you have an underpowered machine for what windows needs. Sure Xubuntu will trash Windows on an old P4 however on modern hardware they'll be fairly equivalent with windows having a slight edge due to better video acceleration. I use both daily and they're both responsive environments.
- eitland 6y ago
  > Windows is not painful and sluggish compared to Linux GUIs. It's on par. 30% longer compile times than on Linux on the same hardware. Using git takes time compared to being instantaneous. Running "hello world" written in .Net takes 3-5 seconds compared to <<1 second on Linux on the same hardware. > If your GUI is sluggish it's because you're letting stuff like letting crappy antivirus and malware detection run in the background or you have an underpowered machine for what windows needs. As I mentioned above, Linux is amazingly much faster on the same hardware! And brand new 2018/2019 hardware at that when I measured last time. That said antivirus is a real problem. Part of the problem is that mandatory Windows OS often signals sysadmins that doesn't care, so you often get tragically bad antivirus, possibly misconfigured at that.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    I/O on Windows is definitively slower point and it affects git performance but OP says about GUI. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18783525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18783525

chrisan 6y ago

> but is also scared about Microsoft's strategy here? Scared of what? I have spent years either in Window's inferior environment for development or having to dual boot or running something like VMWare workstation. I do that because linux is inferior for gaming/entertainment. I have never "enjoyed" a single linux desktop environment, I spend the majority of my time coding or running stuff on terminal. I'm in my 40s and tired of going back and forth between the two. WSL has been a godsend Linux has as much to be scared about from Microsoft as Microsoft has to be scared of Linux gaming

d3nj4l 6y ago
> I do that because linux is inferior for gaming/entertainment. It really isn't any more. I play a lot of games and only one so far has refused to work well on Linux, and that's one which is emulated on Windows so I can't blame Linux too much for it. And that's on a laptop with nvidia's power-saving shit thrown into the mix. As for entertainment, aside from Firefox having issues with hardware acceleration, most of which have either been fixed or are being fixed, I haven't faced any in Linux that I haven't on Windows. That said, I don't use HDR, so I can't vouch for that. On the other hand, I've had significant performance issues with WSL, especially on disk use, and I don't really care for windows update bugging me all the time and the telemetry. I jumped on board Linux with Pop!_OS and it's been a delight. I used to be just as negative on Linux, but I have been so, so happy I've been proven wrong.
- kyriakos 6y ago
  No matter how you see it, games are primarily made to run on Windows and the other OS's are an after thought. I am not saying it didn't get better but gaming on windows is natural and requires no special configuration. A normal user who wants to play games if he's not already on a gaming console the next best option is Windows.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    > No matter how you see it, games are primarily made to run on Windows and the other OS's are an after thought I think this hasn't been true for some time for studio games. Most (big budget) games are ported to windows from consoles, except for indie titles

pjmlp 6y ago

No, because: 1 - throughout all these years Linux developers have been giving money to Apple instead of supporting Linux OEMs. Using a BSD flavour to target Linux 2 - Apparently many like the extend done by Google with Android and ChromeOS

Santosh83 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but unlike your point 2, doesn't WSL make the Linux kernel obsolete in the long run? That'd be the Extinguish part which is still far beyond the horizon but isn't it something worth thinking about?
- maple3142 6y ago
  This may be true in WSL 1, but WSL 2 uses actual Linux kernel, it won't be a problem. Instead, what will be affected is Linux Desktop.
- thejsa 6y ago
  Not so much with WSL 2, which Microsoft are focusing on at the moment; WSL 2 runs a real Linux kernel in a lightweight Hyper-V VM with lots of jazzy integration services.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  That was a short, interesting test but WSL is now a Linux VM with nice integration in Windows. So no, it doesn't obsolete the kernel in any way. If anything, abandoning WSL1 can be considered proof that MS with doesn't have enough interest in replacing the Linux kernel.
- kyriakos 6y ago
  Microsoft knows that most server applications end up running on Linux and not on Windows. The Linux kernel is not going anywhere, MS is ensuring it doesn't lose more developers to competing OSs. At the same time staying loyal to MS probably also means if you need Linux on a the cloud you'll opt for Azure instead of AWS or Google.
- jakogut 6y ago

osigurdson 6y ago

I think their strategy is to be a better competitor to macOS for development use cases.

nathanlied 6y ago
Yeah, pretty much. I don't think they're trying to do the embrace-extend-extinguish thing here at all, at least not in a "willful" way. Devs I know of that use macOS do it for the "Linux without the jank" aspect - essentially as an "it just works" quasi-Linux distro. If Windows could provide the same experience, or at least a very similar one, I do believe a good number of devs 'raised' on Windows would stay. In my lifetime, I've seen more people convert from Windows->macOS due to wanting to do dev work in a "Linux-like" environment than anything else. It makes sense for MS to want to mitigate that bleed-off.
- adsjhdashkj 6y ago
  Yup, this is my exact use case. I'm needing more hardware and my multiple Macbook Pros are getting old - but i'm not satisfied enough with Mac these days to drop $4k on upgrading. Apple would have to make me really happy with the software (read: bug free, primarily) for me to spend the upscaled costs in their ecosystem. So now i'm installing Windows and Linux, comparing them and the ease of use. I don't want _any_ driver problems, frankly i just want the OS to get out of my way. Historically, Linux has given me such a terrible experience with things like "my BT doesn't work, my sound doesn't work, my monitor doesn't work" that switching away from Mac was viewed as an impossibility. Now however, i see a way out, and i'm taking it. I've experimented with WSL2 and it's shockingly good so far. I'll likely install PopOS this weekend to see if i experience problems. If i even hint a problem in Linux, i'll likely revert back to Windows. Mac is losing it's lunch imo. But, i get to build a workhorse of a PC for the same price i would have given Apple - so i'm happy.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    Mac isn't losing its lunch. We're just not their target users base anymore. Why sell to these demanding power users wanting complex stuff when you can sell to the rich consumer who just wants to dick around on Facebook and play with their iDevices all day :P

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago

Can't you install emacs natively in Windows?

contravariant 6y ago
You can, although most packages are written assuming Linux and getting stuff like tramps to work (which requires paths that are apparently impossibly to type in windows), is a bit of a challenge. Of all the issues I've had with emacs about 80% of them could be traced to running emacs on windows. Not through any fault on windows side mind (except possibly the insane decision to use a different path syntax).
- Siira 6y ago
  That insane decision has been made deliberately to make competitors incompatible.
  - enzo1982 6y ago
    No it hasn't. [0] Unless you want to claim the Unix developers deliberately chose the slash as a path separator to be incompatible with TOPS-10. That could be. [0] http://www.os2museum.com/wp/why-does-windows-really-use-backslash-as-path-separator/ http://www.os2museum.com/wp/why-does-windows-really-use-back...
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    That insane decision has been made deliberately to make competitors incompatible. Not inconceivable. After all Windows is called w32 in Emacs not win32 as is common everywhere else because RMS couldn’t bear to think “win” in association with MS!
stjohnswarts 6y ago
You can but it's extremely hacky to get it all working. It's butter smooth just like Linux on WSL as long as you don't mind running it in a terminal. I use a fairly complicated DOOM emacs install without issues.

Shoue 6y ago

If you're like me, and just don't want to shut off Linux to play some games, I'd recommend looking into virtualising Windows and PCI passthroughing your GPU. I just change the channel on my monitor to switch between Linux and Windows, but if you have two monitors you can dedicate one to each OS. You don't need a hardware kvm switch, evdev lets you swap keyboard/mouse control between host and guest OS with LCtrl+RCtrl, and audio goes through Pulseaudio. You get to avoid using WSL and get the full Linux experience without compromising gaming – with few exceptions: the more extreme anti-cheat software detects VM usage, and that applies to a very small set of AAA games.

aembleton 6y ago
What virtualisation software did you use to achieve that? I spent a few days trying to get it to work on virtual box, vmware and kvm. I gave up and install the Windows to dual boot.
- chousuke 6y ago
  You can get it to work with VMWare and KVM, but in most cases you'll run into problems with hardware. Very few motherboards (and GPUs) actually properly implement the required functionality, so if you don't consider this use case during hardware selection, chances are you won't be able to get it to work in a stable manner. A motherboard claiming support for VT-d is no guarantee that it is able to do anything useful with it.

wayneftw 6y ago

I’m not scared of their strategy because I’m aware of it. I’m scared of adding all the unknown problems of Windows to all the problems of Linux and then having to depend on that on a daily basis. So, I won’t use it. It’s too easy to buy a used computer, slap a new SSD and RAM in it and run Manjaro Linux. I recommend an HP Elite 800 from Amazon for $200-$300. Then if you need Windows it’s just one KVM/RDP click away.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
That's an irrational fear. WSL2 runs on top of a very well vetted VM environment and has it's own well walled off sandbox. If you are trapped in windows like I often am it's a sufficient replacement for the real thing in 98% of use cases. Windows 10 is extremely stable on good hardware from well known companies. Just disable all the garbage that runs in the background. If you buy bottom barrel you will get what you paid for unless you're extremely lucky; same goes for linux.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  No, it's irrational to think that you won't have to deal with the problems of two different OSes when you're running two different OSes. Run only one of them and you'll only have to deal with the problems of one of them on your daily driver. It's really that simple. For work, I put Windows out to pasture on a different workstation - I hardly ever need it at all (I keep it around for for testing and debugging Windows-specific issues and when I want to use SSMS instead of Azure Data Studio or Visual Studio instead of VS Code which is pretty much never), but when I do it's there. For games, I've always had separate dedicated Windows machines. I run Windows on multiple systems and I'm absolutely aware of it's stability but also it's problems. One of my biggest issues with it is that it ignores my active-hours and starts updating right in the middle of me working or playing. It's happened time and again on pretty much all of my Windows machines. Another huge Windows problem is that I don't have any control over many things. For instance - they keep re-pinning shit to the taskbar after an update. Or, they change my settings after an update. Or, they constantly nag me with popups or ads disguised as notifications or start menu icons. > If you buy bottom barrel you will get what you paid for unless you're extremely lucky... OK, not sure how that's relevant. I recommended buying a very solid, albeit refurbished desktop unit from a major manufacturer that I happen to have been running three instances of for years now without problem. > ...same goes for linux. What does that even mean? My years using Linux as a desktop have been filled with far less drama than the years I ran Windows as my workstation.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

For me VMs have worked a lot better than WSL on windows. I'm not sure why everyone is so opposed to them these days. Near native performance, and you get all the linux widgets. Sure it takes up a little more disk space and memory but if you're an engineer those are minimal costs compared to other factors.

manigandham 6y ago
WSL2 is a VM. It’s running a real distro in Hyper-V with some integrations for the file system and docker to be shared across.
- 20thCB 6y ago
  True. It's unfortunate that most people don't seem to realize this, based on WSL1. MS really haven't marketed WSL2 that well.

gigatexal 6y ago

Well yes. This is phase 2 of 3 the first being embrace (see Microsoft loves Linux) and the current one being extending. Only here they’re extending Windows to cater to Linux use cases. The next and final phrase is extinguish. If Windows becomes equivalent to running a Linux distribution but can also run the entire Windows ecosystem of applications not to mention all your games the way they were meant to be played, not via proton or any other translation layers, then what will be the point of greater Linux adoption among businesses and governments? Licensing? All Microsoft would have to do is make Windows free and make all that revenue back on upselling Azure and/or Office. Personally I tried WSL2 out and it was pretty good. The problem was I was still running Windows and I absolutely can’t use to UI to save my life. I loathe it. I’m a huge fan of tiling window managers and Regolith’s my current DE of choice. And lucky for me my games run in proton, I work on backend systems such that I don’t have any dependencies in on anything that runs on Windows (Google docs for office work). So I would not be WSL’s target audience.

randomfool 6y ago
Step 3 is not extinguish- step 3 is exposing APIs or programs in Linux which only work when executing on Windows.
oblio 6y ago
Yes, Microsoft is out to extinguish desktop Linux. They're afraid that 2021 could be the year of desktop Linux. Wait, wasn't that 1999? 2000? 2001? ... Everyone stopped caring when mobile platforms became dominant.
mindfulhack 6y ago
To me, what matters most is privacy and freedom. -> Open-source transparency of code, data, and all that happens with it. (Including the ability to fully control and see what's happening in your system at the network level, like OpenSnitch - https://github.com/gustavo-iniguez-goya/opensnitch https://github.com/gustavo-iniguez-goya/opensnitch). I don't see any of MSFT's actions threatening this on a really big picture level. It's always been and always will be up to 'the community' to build and make Linux and free software what it is. Linux, especially Linux Desktop, is wonderfully flourishing right now, and I don't think it's because 'MS hasn't offered a more compelling alternative to Linux' in the cloud. More largely, it's because we've built what we've wanted. Maybe I'm naive about what we've been ungratefully depending on. If so, I'd settle for a mildly cautious and watchful neutral ground. All I can say is, please contribute to Linux and FOSS if you can. I do.

BuildTheRobots 6y ago

> is also scared about Microsoft's strategy here? Terrified. I'm expecting the next round of secure boot to come, this time without the ability to disable or add your own keys. To the people that complain they can't boot linux, I expect the response to be "but you can run linux from windows, silly!"

FpUser 6y ago
It is I think possible but not very likely
Analemma_ 6y ago
I've been hearing hysteria about "Microsoft is going to block people from booting Linux!" since like 2005. They don't even do it on their own line of hardware. If they wanted to do it, they would have by now.
- pedro2 6y ago
  They removed the requirement of Secure Boot being deactivable from OEM requirements.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    When was that ever a requirement?
    - the8472 6y ago
      Surface models running Windows RT (windows on arm) had locked secure boot where you couldn't replace the master keys.
      - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        "Surface RT" / "Windows RT" was never intended to be sold by other OEMs though.

texasbigdata 6y ago

Also kinda unstable. WSL2 maybe 2 months post release bricked (edit: as in had to wipe and restore) my Lenovo laptop. Wasn’t too bad to reinstall but still seems a bit immature.

EE84M3i 6y ago
How did WSL2 ruin your windows install? As an aside: I normally use "bricked" to mean "entirely unusable as a computing device"
- texasbigdata 6y ago
  BSOD and could not restore. To install wsl you have to enable windows insiders beta patches as part of install process. Had to external drive boot and wipe.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    Installing insider preview (beta) is done with your responsibility, not responsible by WSL2. Of course WSL2 is now supported in Windows stable.

m463 6y ago

step 2: extend? or is it just trying to make a decent machine people want to use? It could be emergent behavior. One faction in microsoft does this, then later another faction might take advantage of the situation. In any case, one of linux's best characteristics is to be "checks and balances" against common software.

tomrod 6y ago

I wonder if they will relearn that fighting anti-authoritarian tinkerers (aka hackers) is a losing strategy.

nobody9999 6y ago

>WSL has been great for me to also be able to do few-compromises coding work on it (previously had an arch linux partition but was tired of having to reboot to access it). Cygwin[0] is a lot more mature and has a huge set of supported applications. [0] https://cygwin.com https://cygwin.com

manigandham 6y ago
WSL1 was a reimplementation of Linux system calls and offered most of what modern tools needed. WSL2 is a complete Linux kernel/distro running in a Hyper-V virtual machine. Cygwin is no longer needed when you have real Linux.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Cygwin is no longer needed when you have real Linux. I'd say that depends on your use case. For many folks, WSL is an excellent idea. I've played around with it and it doesn't give me anything over what I already have using Cygwin. Also, Cygwin+userland is much lighter weight than an integrated VM like WSL2. A lot of the question is what you want/need. I need a decent shell with a fairly complete unix userland. X is nice to have as well. That such functionality seamlessly integrates with Windows is great. But I don't need a dev environment (although Cygwin provides that as well) for unix on my Windows box. I'm sure there are other use cases/software that requires a full blown Linux kernel/environment, but they don't apply to me. I just use VMs (on separate hardware) for that. And unless you actually need a full-blown kernel, rather than a specific set of tools, cygwin provides a lightweight, mature and well supported alternative. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that Cygwin is unix. Rather, I say that for a significant set of use cases, Cygwin can be a superior solution. It all depends on your requirements.
  - nycticorax 6y ago
    This this this. I also find that, for me, cygwin is a better solution for what I want: A bash shell and a decent set of unix-like command-line tools, that (critically) uses the same filesystem as Windows programs do. I've honestly been kind of perplexed by all the excitement around WSL. A lot of people seem to say they want it for "development", by which I guess they mean web development. And I could see WSL being a nice alternative to running a full Linux VM for web development. But I don't do web development (mostly). I just want a unix-like shell and tools on my Windows box. And I don't want to have to think about whether the files I'm creating and working on live in Linux-land or Windows-land.

dapithor 6y ago

I basically already do this with vcxsrv (launch vcxsrv with -ac, start wsl2, export DISPLAY, run emacs) and gui displays!