Re: I sense a sea change at MS. And I'm not sure it is all swells from here on....
I suppose it depends on how you view things. For years MS got criticised for not being scriptable, so they made Powershell, it's most definatly not bash, but it is very powerful, and very Microsoft, which is kind of what you'd expect really. (clever, but ever so slightly over complex. ;) ). It also shouldn't be bash, Windows isn't unix, it has a diferent mindset. I'm not really that versed in their other languages, (although the C/C++ standards support has improved a lot recently), but there's many many languages out there, all with their own quirks and idioms, I'm not sure I can blame MS for C# any more than Mozilla for Rust or Google for go.
As for WSL, I'd never really considered it as the 'embrace' part, but yeah, you're right, it is, embracing Linux, isn't that a good thing? Doesn't it help change the 'incompatabilities'? I mean I can run the linux build of Firefox on Windows, using nothing other than MS supplied software and a copy of mobaxterm. You'd not believe me if I said that 15 years ago.
It's the extend and extinguish part that is the problem, and I don't really see that being the MS of today. For example if that's their plan why not stick with WSL 1 and make it more compatable, that keeps the source in house and extensable. Instead they took the quickest route to fixing the issues and basically now run Linux in a specialised VM. Including contributing their changes back to Linux. How do they 'extend' and 'extinguish' with this?
Meanwhile they've made no attempt to support other filesystems than NTFS (and FAT, obviously).
Why should they? There's nothing stopping anyone else writing one, unlike 20 years ago the Windows DDK is a free download, as is the compiler and toolset you need for it. (It even works with git these days, another thing they contribute to). There's example file system driver code here.
Right, after writing my second post defending MS in the last 2 days I need to go and wash off the shame.