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 FatPhil on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:58PM (3 children)
You appear to be misspelling that word before bowlderizing it.
HTH. HAND.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Funny) by whatteaux on Wednesday May 08 2019, @12:17AM (1 child)
> You appear to be misspelling that word before bowlderizing it.
Speaking of misspelling: perhaps you meant "bowdlerise"?
The ironing is delicious.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:16AM
I also made sure I can support that claim by posting this to the #shitlords IRC channel a few seconds before clicking submit:
<@FatPhil> bowlderizing - snigger...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by jb on Wednesday May 08 2019, @07:50AM
Nah, I reckon he meant "grammar nihilism", which both fits the blanks and matches the thrust of his post, since the error he pointed out in the GP was not one of grammar but one of semantics...