Re: Serves a roll
I don't understand the big deal. Why was this needed? Dual booting isn't difficult and is the best way to run Linux. Otherwise your Linux is limited by whatever code translates the Linux calls to windows calls. This means you might have an issue with a Linux program that only exists because you are running it in WSL.
You also are sharing resources with Windows. So the more libs you load to get graphics and such, the slower it will act.
Dual booting alleviates both issues. Your Linux environment IS the loaded system so it just works. All the RAM is available to Linux so it is blazingly fast and efficient. All Linux programs only need rely on the Linux OS instead of some abstraction layer. Thus if you have an issue with a Linux program, you know it's the program and not some unsupported call translation.
Virtual machines are better than WSL too. At least you get the full loaded Linux system, even if it is siphoning raw resources from the computer like RAM and HD space that Windows could otherwise use. The syscalls flow from the app in userspace to the guest OS and vice verse, cutting the host OS out of the picture.
Using a hypervisor is even better as it abstracts the actual hardware layer of the machine and double checks the permissions of instructions. And you can effectively dual boot a dual boot with a hypervisor. You could run VMware Workstation and install upon it OSx AND Windows, and then run maybe Win95 and Linux as OS-level VMs in the Windows side. The syscalls go directly from the app in the VM to the hypervisor and vice verse, effectively bypassing the guest OS in the userspace. But you would be able to check your app in all three operating systems with high reliability.
And last but certainly not least, you can always live boot a USB image. You can even boot Linux by loading it entirely into ram so it is stupendously fast. Make it a persistent USB drive and you won't even lose custom settings in the booted Linux environment.
A lot of companies would prefer the USB method as it doesn't change the host computer at all. Even VMs eat up resources long term unless you delete them after each use. Dual booting on company computers is a hard sell to some IT departments since you are cutting the HD into partitions they might not have access to. But booting from a live image on a USB leaves no traces at all. And again, it gives you the full Linux operating system, not a translated pretend version with myriad limitations.
So why WSL? Why would anyone use it instead of one of the above three options? If you are a developer running Linux apps, why would you be in Windows in the first place such that you need WSL to test your apps? Aren't Linux developers that use Windows to code executed in the town square?