WSL is MSFT's attempt to "enclose" Linux entirely within Windows. This is MSFT's only option due to Linux's GPL v2 license. But, to be frank, WSL is the worst of both worlds - Linux, but constrained by the arbitrary limitations of Windows. Yes, MSFT trying to control the platform.
If you want to use Linux... why not just use Linux? There's literally nothing standing in your way. Using WSL is voluntarily making yourself a pawn for MSFT's proprietary interests.
I see where you are coming from and agree (mostly), there is a reason why for a limited group of people WSL makes sense.
These people work in large companies that use Microsoft based IT infrastructure. For better or worse they are tied to Windows due to regulatory and security concerns and they want to remain competitive in a world where like you rightly point out the best devs and the innovative work is being done on Linux architecture.
WSL presents a way forward for them.
@technikhil any business "tied" to Windows tech... has already consigned itself to being overtaken by smarter competitors that aren't haven't already made that strategic blunder. The freedom and flexibility of Linux constrained by the world's worst, most restrictive proprietary OS, is not a useful thing in the big picture.
@technikhil WSL is a solution to a problem no one should have unless they're trying to mitigate horrible past decisions.
The *right* solution, is for corporations with a Windows dependence to take the hit of abandoning Windows for *real* (unencumbered) Linux for their own future's sake.
Perhaps, but all the idealism in the world is not going to make a Fortune 50 public company take a "hit" that could run into double digit percentages of revenue and potentially put them out of business in the short term.
@technikhil then let them lose fair and square to more nimble competitors who are smarter, and have selected Linux as their platform. I can completely assure you that they will win in any fair fight.
I don't know where you get this idea that business and competition is fair :-)
I don't agree that Linux is necessarily the "fair" answer. To my mind Linux is not the "best" or "fairest" alternatives - one only need to go and ask Stallman his viewpoint on Linux to get alternative opinions.
@technikhil Heh, true (re Stallman's opinions) - but Linux is Free Software, and it's better for most purposes than any alternative I'm aware of (trust me, been doing this a LONG time - 26 years).
The lack of fairness in business is another problem that needs fixing.
If you have been in software that long you must remember that the Windows Subsystem for Linux used to exist in the 90s (Windows NT/2000 era) before they got rid of it. At that time it was there to give Windows sales reps a way to tell customers they could migrate their Unix solutions to Windows. They got rid of it as soon as they could because it represented a way to escape Windows back to Unix/Posix systems that they wanted to plug.
@technikhil yes - they've pretended they're excited about it, but really, they've come kicking and screaming. When they have to capitulate on something due to strategic or executive failure (e.g. canning Silverlight in favour of HTML5) they pretend it was their idea from the start (like the time MS claimed it'd "invented" file and directory aliases, despite UNIX & Linux having had links (hard & symbolic) for 20+ years).
We should interpret this as MSFT losing ground and re-trenching.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!