Hacker News Reader

Comment by VWWHFSfQ | Hacker News Reader

They may be trying to avoid running a virtualized linux altogether. If their goal is just to run Android apps, and not a full general purpose Linux operating system, then that would point to why they're not interested in Anbox. But like I said, I don't know what they're doing.

View on HN

The previous impl used the tech that became WSL1, and I'm not sure you can in practice bypass the Linux syscall. WSL1 is now deprecated and I don't think it is actually reasonable to try to follow the fast paced dev of Linux, even more so since a few years. So the WSL2 approach seems perfectly fine.

WSL1 is _not_ deprecated. it is just recommended you use WSL2 since theres a wide range of incompatibilities in WSL1 with various Linux tools. However if all you need is a basic toolchain in some ways it’s superior to WSL2 because it doesn’t require a VM.

You are right although in my mind it is frozen, and given Linux continues to move, I see WSL1 has almost deprecated.

For a few years it may continue to be useful, however soon enough you won't be able to run a modern distro on WSL1. At this point it would actually be defacto deprecated.

Thus probably nobody, neither MS nor 3rd parties, will base a medium/long term plan on WSL1 now. It's already legacy tech; still maintained for essential things (security, etc.), but already legacy.

> I don't think it is actually reasonable to try to follow the fast paced dev of Linux

That's not quite the reason why it's deprecated. Microsoft can emulate a stable kernel's ABI for a long time before needing to update, so it's not the "fast paced dev" of Linux. The problem that Windows simply can't 100% emulate the behavior of all syscalls with the way NT functions. As a result, WSL1 will always be a subset of the syscalls available on WSL2. It won't matter if they don't keep up with new ones, however it starts to make WSL1 less useful over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com