For example, I read a blog where someone pulled down the redis source, compiled it, and was running it in wsl. That would be great for me, because it means I can just run redis in my dev environment, instead of turning on a vm to run redis (I know windows ports exist, but I've found it was faster and more reliable to just run the vm).
I also typically add ports of common applications (ls, grep, touch, etc) in my windows environments just to fill the gaps windows has. With this, I probably won't need to do that anymore.
This subsystem runs the exact binaries that you would run in your native boot system.
It's as simple as "apt-get install redis-server redis-tools"
The only thing I can think of that it'll open up for you is if you want to develop for Windows, while still having Linux available to you. Whether that's for developing games (most of the good game development tools run only on Windows, even if they can deploy to Linux/Mac/Android), or developing for Windows Phone (or whatever it's called this week), using Microsoft technology like Visual Studio and C# (though it's now possible to do most things on Linux via .Net Core, I think), or playing games that aren't available for Linux.
The modern Linux desktop is every bit as good as Windows (and Mac OS), IMHO, though I'd be willing to bet accessibility is still better on Windows. Hardware compatibility for modern devices is probably still better for Windows, too, though old devices certainly are more likely to run on Linux than Windows (a lot of my pro audio and music equipment hasn't run under Windows since like Windows Vista or something, but still works fine under Linux).
From my perspective after a week of tinkering with it, and using is exclusively for my development work, I don't feel like it has given me anything over my Linux environment. But, it does make the Windows development experience much closer to what I expect from Linux. If I developed Windows desktop applications, I would tell a different story, but I develop applications that run on Linux servers; developing on Windows provides no benefits, only negatives...but the negatives have gotten so small that they probably don't matter, anymore. A new developer just learning to build web apps, for example, could do it pretty much as easily on Windows as they could on Linux. Which has never been as true as it is today.
WSL is still very buggy and quirky, and the Windows build it runs on crashes several times a day (at least on my laptop, it does), so it's a net loss in productivity for me, as I'm spending some time waiting on reboots. But, in a few months, it'll probably be stable, widespread, well-documented, etc. And, at that point, maybe it'll even be an ideal option for some developers who are building for cross-platform deployment. Who knows, maybe in a few months, I'll find myself wanting to build something for Windows. I might come back from Linux for a while to spend time in Windows; I certainly don't hate it as much as I used to.
As for advantages Windows gives me over Linux, there are two.
1) Visual Studio. Even with all of its warts, it's a better debugging tool than anything linux or mac has to offer.
2) Gaming. Games on linux and OS X are catching up, but they're not there yet. I develop as well as play and Unity3D and Unreal Engine, not to mention the graphics drivers, just work better on windows.
I still adamantly oppose linux unless used through SSH.
I use windows for games and as a result just day to day stuff. This makes my life better because I don't have to use putty for SSH. At work being able to use linux tooling is wonderful. Just such a massive improvement over trying to figure out the command shell stuff.
> WSL is still very buggy and quirky, and the Windows build it runs on crashes several times a day (at least on my laptop, it does), so it's a net loss in productivity for me, as I'm spending some time waiting on reboots.
I had some weird video issues. In fairness, it's an insider build. Once they actually release the update maybe it will be better.
Is it a political party? What's to oppose? Use it or don't. I'm surprised to learn there are still folks who feel so negatively about the Linux desktop; to me it just seems like it's gotten so good in the past couple of years. I have almost nothing to complain about (and the complaints I have are pretty specific to my odd use cases, and I have related complaints about Windows and Mac).
The politest thing that I can say about that is "there's no accounting for taste".
I think it's everything I want from a desktop environment: Reliable, gets out of the way, looks gorgeous and consistent across all of the apps I use (I mention consistency because my terminal in Windows, a variant of ConEmu, looks ridiculously out of place and has a clunky and crowded UI, to boot), and has the right amount of configurability (with options for getting at stuff that isn't visible). I can't think of anything that Windows 10 or Mac OS have that I miss in Linux. The fact that it has my preferred shell environment natively and the most sensible (to me) filesystem paths, and provides a near enough to identical environment as what my CentOS 7 servers run, is just icing on the cake.
In short: What don't you like about Gnome 3 that you do like about the Windows or Mac OS desktop experience?
Yes. I have such unreasonable demands as thinking that, say, minimising windows might work the way I'd expect on every other OS, or that the extension API might remain stable across ostensibly minor releases, or that features don't disappear on a whim. I would like my desktop to feel like a desktop, and not like a tablet.
So, you don't like Windows 10, either, I guess?
I find it to be even more insistently tablet-like than Gnome (which I agree has some elements I previously only associated with Android, and I was slow to adapt, but I've come to be very comfortable with it). My new laptop has a touchscreen, which is a thing I didn't want...but it was the only way to get a 4k screen, so I have it, and I've even come to like it. My habits are evolving slowly, and it'll probably be a year or two before I even remember to touch the screen more than a few times a day, but I think the evolution is a positive one. That said, in the "cons" of having a tablet-like interface, Windows 10 has a "feature" that makes your start menu different every time you open it, which I find very difficult to use (I have to start typing to find anything always). That's just awful. But, I think I would hate it on a tablet, too.
For the other stuff, I kinda like the minimize behavior (but never use minimize...I use virtual desktops to determine what's in and out of view), I think the extensions API has been stabilized for a year or two now. Gnome 3 shipped in some distros when it was not ready (even though they were calling it stable, it wasn't), but it's firmed up a lot. Now, they're mostly doing incremental improvements. Each time I upgrade now (and I've been using Gnome 3 since it first shipped with Fedora) the surprises are small and pleasant (of the form "Oh, that looks nice!").
In short, I agree with some of your criticisms...but, only when applied to Gnome 3 of a year or two or three ago.
Like resizing Windows in Xubuntu? They give you a 1 px border to grab. Bug reported years ago. No fix; happens in all built-in themes. This kind of lack of polish is everywhere.
It's good, it's functional, usable, I'd take it over Windows XP or something, but let's not say it's every bit as good.
You honestly have no idea how much. Desktop accessibility in Linux, at least for me as a screen reader user, is a joke.
What advantages would this give you over running Firefox natively on Windows?