They implement Linux functionality enough to suck at it and then the Windows users that try it thinks it is Linux that sucks and not Windows.
.Net Core programs run much faster on Linux.
Does that sound like something they would let happend if they wasn't serious about their Linux efforts?
That said: all is not good. For years there seems to be a fight going on in the wheelhouse.
One month it is: Microsoft, the reliable, reasonable vendor in a world full of Oracle and Google.
Next month it is: let's increase the cost for this small company by $10000 just because we can.
Next month: something admirable.
Next month: try to push Edge using some sleazy tactic learned from Googles Chrome push combined with resetting the defaults.
It must be frustrating for the guys who try so hard to drag the rest of Microsoft kicking and screaming into the future everytime some old guys gets up from the wheelchair and turn the weel all the way to the port side while the helmsman wasn't paying attention :-]
Hhhm I think the most remarkable parr is that it runs at all, really! .Net Core on Linux by itself shows plenty commitment.
The performance of it? Considering NT was only developped by a single company, has to maintains a lot of stable/legacy driver APIs, and seems to have been on the backburner for a few years, as a Linux user I'd find it very humbling if our kernel still came out behind :)
It's interesting to see where this is all converging. It'll be easier to run Linux tech on Windows, and all the MS legacy still runs.
But at the same time maybe they're familiarising their loyal userbase with the outside ecosystem a little more than they should. If new Windows users are encouraged to learn Linux ways, at some point you're making it easier for people to transition
With WSL you can setup some docker containers or do some orchestration with Kubernetes and push it off to the cloud with minimal effort.
If you really want a full Linux environment you can spin up a VM in Hyper-V. WSL just makes it easier to do things where a VM is a hassle.
zed@ZED-PC:~$ sudo service docker start
* Starting Docker: docker [ OK ]
zed@ZED-PC:~$ sudo docker run hello-world
Unable to find image 'hello-world:latest' locally
latest: Pulling from library/hello-world
b8dfde127a29: Pull complete
Digest: sha256:f2266cbfc127c960fd30e76b7c792dc23b588c0db76233517e1891a4e357d519
Status: Downloaded newer image for hello-world:latest
Hello from Docker!
This message shows that your installation appears to be working correctly.
sudo systemctl start docker
[sudo] password for u3332:
System has not been booted with systemd as init system (PID
1). Can't operate.
Failed to connect to bus: Host is down
It's not a problem with Docker on WSL 2, but a problem with the way WSL uses its own init system instead of systemd, while some Ubuntu packages are packaged for a systemd system.
> Nowadays you can try:
> sudo service docker start
> when using WSL2, if you are running on windows version 2004 or higher (I assume).
Which is what I did in the listing above.
sudo service docker start
[sudo] password for u3323:
docker: unrecognized servicee:
ver
Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.19042.928]
e:
Everything except the service start, which I had to find in that StackOverflow thread. We've hit the max comment depth, so I couldn't response to you directly.
sudo service docker startdefine terrible. Compared to what ?
> No one is seriously developing in WSL.
A very strong statement. Do you have any proof perhaps ?
Terrible = significantly worse than a native Linux distro that doesn't use a file system integration layer.
> A very strong statement. Do you have any proof perhaps ?
Just experience working in the industry.
What filesystem integration layer?
> We recommend against working across operating systems with your files
https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2019/06/01/wsl-access-to-li...
Just run everything on the Linux kernel and compilation will be the same as on Linux. You do have a choice of where you put your files.