It will be a big step forward from the various X server options & is looking very promising.
Personally I am really liking WSL2- it has replaced an always on Linux VM for me (well, it is an always on Linux VM for me).
It will be a big step forward from the various X server options & is looking very promising.
Personally I am really liking WSL2- it has replaced an always on Linux VM for me (well, it is an always on Linux VM for me).
Here's a question I've been dying to ask someone who admits this is just a VM: What makes it better than running VirtualBox or VMWare Workstation, and having a nice GUI to control the various elements of the virtualization settings?
A VM has always felt a little cumbersome, even with all of the integrations working correctly.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/compare-version...
- easy integration with the Windows filesystem (it's automounted into the WSL env)
- Using VS Code to work with files in the WSL2 env. works out of the box (just type `code .` in a WSL windows)
- It's very quick to spin up new WSL2 instances. you can just use `--import` and it'll bring in a tarball to create your new instance. You can even export a Docker image and use that as a WSL instance base filesystem which is handy.
- Docker for Windows works pretty well for most usecases and you get one shared Docker instance across all your WSL setups.
Sure I could do all that with discrete managed VMs but this is easier
TBH for throwaway Kubernetes cluster in WSL, I'd recommend kind (https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind) it works just fine with WSL/Docker for Windows.
One interesting thing is that if you have WSL2 turned on, then Windows runs virtualized as well -- it's just the 'root partition' under Hyper-V.
When it comes to user friendliness and things "just working", it's easily the worst choice you could make.
I completely agree on WSL1 but once I switched to WSL2 I haven't seen anything that doesn't "just work".