[owenwil]

Last time I did it was February, and it was just as problematic back then – I'm not sure what advantage it offers over WSL2 (which is containerized) when combined with all of the benefits of Windows these days, for the hassle.

[qalmakka]

After you start understanding how the system works, you can do things that are simply not possible with Windows. WSL2 is nice, but it's always still a VM. You don't have the flexibility of running a full Linux distro on real hardware. For instance, I made a portable work environment that boots straight from an SSD in a USB 3.1 case; it is fully encrypted, and it boots the same on every single machine under the sun. I can even quickly boot it in a VM using QEMU.

I personally use pretty much all the major OSes, and I think each one has its ups and down. I still think that Linux can potentially offer a much leaner and snappier experience than the other OS, because you can actually control what goes into your system and what runs and when. I also think that "easy" operating systems (and with them I also group distributions such as Ubuntu and similar) tend to give more advanced users an illusion of reliability that then sorely bites you in the back as soon as something goes awry. A few weeks ago I lost hours trying to understand why Windows was refusing to update to 2004, because Microsoft has hidden every single detail of how the system works away from the user.

I think that many people don't really know how to properly administer Windows systems, and that when things go south you still need to know what to do just like with every other OS.

[heavyset_go]

Windows containers aren't the same as Linux containers, as Windows containers run via Hyper-V, and Linux runs container processes natively.