Has no one seen this yet? Don't cross the streams!
Earlier today, we wrote that Microsoft was going to add some big new features to the Windows Subsystem for Linux, including native support for Docker containers. It turns out that that ain't the half of it.
Not even half.
All is changing with Windows Subsystem for Linux 2. Instead of emulating the Linux kernel APIs on the NT kernel, WSL 2 is going to run a full Linux kernel in a lightweight virtual machine. This kernel will be trimmed down and tailored to this particular use case, with stripped-down hardware support (since it will defer to the host Windows OS for that) and faster booting.
The Linux kernel is GPLed open source; the GPL license requires that any modifications made to the code must be published and made available under the GPL license. Microsoft will duly comply with this, publishing the patches and modifications it makes to the kernel. WSL 2 will also use a similar split as the current WSL does: the kernel component will be shipped with Windows while "personalities" as provided by the various Linux distributions can be installed from the Microsoft Store.
To quote Han Solo, "I've got a bad feeling about this."
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @04:36PM
I'm not unhappy with Linux on a beefy VM. As long as it doesn't interfere with my work. And that's the bottom line.
In fact the beefy VM may be a lot better as I think about it. I am not responsible for maintaining the hardware. I may never even see the hardware. I can google for the type of processor I'm running on and have my eyes pop out at how many thousands of dollars that chip costs. But I also have two decent physical servers in my office. The most recent was about $11,000 -- and about half of that is the Windows OS -- yes really. Hyper-V (boo!). But I can spin up Linux VMs just fine and so have little to complain about.
I do run some Windows in a VM -- but Windows Server 2012 VMs. Because the Windows 2012 Server Data Center Edition (in my office) allows me to (is licensed to) create unlimited Windows 2012 Server VMs and activate them. That is not a desktop OS. But it runs everything I need just fine.
I hadn't really thought about bare metal. But now that I do, I think VMs offer WAY more flexibility.
Here is the most amusing thing. Since I am a Java developer, using Eclipse, and mostly open source apps (gimp, inkscape, libreoffice etc), I don't have much need of any Windows-Only apps. But those I do have (Office, Outlook, Skype, etc) are installed and maintained on my desktop by the IT department. I don't have to deal with keeping them running.
If I need to run a different Windows Server OS, that can be done. Install it. Put in the request. CIT will come along and activate it for me.
If I need to virtualize a Windows Desktop OS, that can also be done. An extra few hoops to jump through in putting in the paperwork. I did it years ago, but no more. It's easier to just use a Windows Server OS, or a Linux GUI or a Linux sans GUI.
Within my organization, I see everything warming up to open source a lot now. It's like everyone is catching up to where I was fifteen years ago.
One thing British schools lack that American schools have is active shooter drills so we are prepared.