It looks like Parallels has the same restrictions that you'd get from running Win11 ARM inside the UTM hypervisor on M1/M2 Macs (like I currently do): No WSL/WSA and no virtualization based security or sandboxes.
It does use Hyper-V if I remember correctly.
You should be able to run WSL1 inside an aarch64 windows vm however.
From what I gather from people with far more experience than me: if you need a "Linux-compliant" environment you're better-off with WSL2 than macOS.
WSL2 is just running a Linux in a VM. You can do that with VirtualBox and other hypervisors. You can also spin up a Kubernetes runtime that supports Apple's Hypervisor Framework.
I'd willing to bet some pocket money that most people claiming that don't know what they're talking about
Unless you need, I dunno, DBUS? Or are specifically building stuff for Ubuntu/Red hat etc
Although if you have windows it also tends to run there too.
https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/bash shows version 5.2.15.
https://packages.ubuntu.com/kinetic/bash (well http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/b/bash/bas...) shows 5.2.1+debian/ubuntu patches.
From GPLv3 onwards, Apple has had to leave installation of newer versions of tools to users, legally, our publish their own proprietary IP, Stallman’s objective some would say.
That’s simply FUD. Apple seemed to be able to use GPLv2 without any consequences, and GPLv3 has all the same properties in that regard. The real reason is likely this:
https://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/
[…]
Anyway, the message is pretty obvious: Apple won’t ship anything that’s licensed under GPL v3 on OS X. Now, why is that?
There are two big changes in GPL v3. The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship. The second is that it carefully prevents TiVoization, locking down hardware so that people can’t actually run the software they want.
So, which of those things are they planning for OS X, eh?
I’m also intrigued to see how far they are prepared to go with this. They already annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people with the Samba and GCC removal. Having wooed so many developers to the Mac in the last decade, are they really prepared to throw away all that goodwill by shipping obsolete tools and making it a pain in the ass to upgrade them?
But I see that user ‘pjmlp’, who probably has a much more informed opinion than mine, is posting in this thread.
Possibly to your assertion, it's what we engineers were at some point internally trained by legal was the concern.
Perhaps legal decided the fiasco wasn't worth a protracted court battle, and PR digressions, and foisted the option of re-implementing missing modernized functionality on homebrew/macports, on purpose?
If Apple merely wanted to save on work and dump it all on third-party ports, why not remove packages outright or, for a period of time, make them available as official add-ons? Why, in that case, keep ancient versions as part of the OS? Why remove something as widely used as Samba, which as I recall garnered some criticism at the time? It seems likely to me that Apple has some other reason than that to remove all GPL-licensed packages.
I'm also a Rails dev and I do all my dev work on an M1 mac and don't even have Docker installed, though I've heard it has improved a lot recently.