• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      401·
      11 months ago

      Yeah I think the clown is supposed to represent Windows Executives changing their tone about Linux over time, but I’m not certain. If anything, accepting that you were wrong is a sign of strength in my opinion.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          2·
          11 months ago

          If they still think linux is ideologically opposed to them then they should probably stop funding and promoting its use, but honestly there probably isn’t a consensus at Microsoft.

    • Waffelson@lemmy.worldOP
      11·
      11 months ago

      No one considers Linux to be communism
      It was MS propaganda to tarnish the reputation of linux

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      7·
      11 months ago

      Can’t imagine why people would call freely distributing a means of production some commie thing

      That’s just good patriotism, ensuring everyone, no matter their means, has access to a vital resource for modern life

      • muse@fedia.io
        111·
        11 months ago

        Uh machines take power?? All machines virtually have powerloss. Checkmate, atheist.

        • alihan_banan@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          Dude, im not native speaker, so i dont clearly understand. I mean, virtual machine that cannot perform just like a real hardware you use is a generally bad idea. Like, i have an 8 core ryzen and its still laggy in basics when i use android emulator or try to run anything demanding in wsl. Its just not good

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    10·
    11 months ago

    I mean, I like WSL for what it is. Having suffered through the limitations of MinGW32 and Cygwin, I appreciate that the WSL simply “just works.” But I’m also not kidding myself, as one could get the same experience from VirtualBox and a little more elbow-grease. I also like how the WSL automatically exposes a host-only SMB mount, making the Linux filesystem a lot more accessible from the very start.

    What I don’t appreciate is that the WSL places the Linux firewall outside the Windows firewall. Locking that thing down can be daunting for a novice, if it’s ever done at all. Considering that the main use-case for this is development, that means there can be a lot of WSL setups out there with exposed and vulnerable web services on 'em.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      81·
      11 months ago

      EEE only works if you can corner the market for the technology. I almost guarantee you nobody is dropping Linux in favor of WSL.

      • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        “Almost”

        Guarantee is not actual guarantee. Void in all lower 48 states , Alaska, Hawaii and worldwide. Guarantee cannot be combined with other offers warranting that product exists.

    • Skelectus@suppo.fi
      71·
      11 months ago

      Not really. MS and others have grown dependent on it, and going forward with eee would be shooting their own web service foot.

  • Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    64·
    11 months ago

    Pretty sure this should be in reverse? And can you really say you’re into Linux if you don’t even know what the fuck WSL is?

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      19·
      11 months ago

      It makes sense from MS’s perspective. They started not liking Linux, and now have integrated it in their OS with WSL, thusly becoming a full clown for the great hypocrisy compared to their original dislike of Linux.

        • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
          2·
          11 months ago

          nope. it’s just a fancy word for a linux VM running on windows with special integrations like full file system access etc.

          it’s mainly used by developers who need to use windows for work but want a linux filesystem and command line for development. integrates well eith VSCode.

          • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
            2·
            11 months ago

            Ah. So equally irrelevant for Mac folks?

            15 years ago, it was hard to be a developer and avoid some contact with Windows (unless you were senior enough to have some pull), especially in the East Coast, where all high tech lags by about 5 years. Now days, the assumption that everyone must have to have some Windows interaction is more of an ass-U-me.

            There’s exactly one Windows machine in my life right now, and it’s my wife’s work computer. I only have to touch it when it’s fucking something basic up, like audio, and I couldn’t install something like WSL on it in any case.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        21·
        11 months ago

        Windows is based on VMS which was based on RSX-11. Rsx-11 was the OS that Unix was written on.

        So a truly traditionally authentic Linux kernel should be compiled under Windows.

        • rhet0rica@lemm.ee
          3·
          11 months ago

          I realize you’re trying to be funny, but just in case you don’t know the actual history:

          The Windows NT kernel was architected by Dave Cutler, who had previously designed the VMS and RSX-11M kernels. (RSX-11 is actually a family of PDP-11 operating systems; the “M” stood for “multitasking.”) No code was ever shared between the three.

          The Unix implementation team started out on a PDP-7, which was a much smaller computer than a PDP-11. Its first code was cross-compiled from a GE 635 mainframe left over at AT&T from the Multics project, which (if it ran anything) would have only had GECOS available. They did eventually graduate to a PDP-11/45, but to do this they used their PDP-7 system to cross-compile. Unix was ported to the PDP-11 in 1970, two years before the first RSX-11 release from DEC (which wasn’t even Cutler’s RSX-11M; that was 1974).

          The appropriate precursor to Linux would be Minix, a much later Unix-like system, which Torvalds was trying to clone. At the time, Microsoft did have its hands in the x86 'nix pie, however; Xenix was popular in business.

            • rhet0rica@lemm.ee
              2·
              11 months ago

              Right; Mica wasn’t VMS as far as I know, but rather a generic kernel that would have hosted VMS as a client API, a little like how NT hosts Win32 and POSIX (and not OS/2), or how IBM’s Workplace OS was going to host OS/2, AIX, and Mac OS as “personalities.” It’s not likely that any VMS-specific code would have been salvaged from Mica for use in NT, but rather the nucleus of a portable API-agnostic kernel, in which case any architectural resemblance to VMS has more to do with Cutler’s sensibilities and less to do with code re-use.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    613·
    11 months ago

    microsoft has never really been anti linux though… some executives might have been but not the company as a whole.

    and wsl is one of the best things they’ve done. windows 10+ is an even better development machine (basically what os x was in the snow leopard days)