[shmerl]

Personally I don't see any benefit that WSL can offer that regular Linux can't. But I don't have any interest in Windows, so your case might differ.

[Bedon292]

Yeah, I have a few things that keep me in Windows. The primary users of the apps I work on are all on Windows, so having a Windows box around tends to be useful to check everything is good.

ArcGIS - Windows only, has enough issues as it is, virtualizing it doesn't tend to go well. Though you can do something like VMWare Fusion mostly successfully.

MS Office - Yes there are alternatives, but we sill operate primarily in Office, and the alternatives are not perfectly compatible. Especially when collaborating with other companies its important. Teams / O365 are certainly getting better, but still not there yet.

Steam - Although that is certainly getting better on Linux as well. And my gaming time is pretty limited these days.

[shmerl]

If they can't work in Wine, you can always run the outliers in Windows VM on Linux, instead of doing the reverse :)

[LaGrange]

WSL2 is by far superior to running Windows in a VM, mostly because it's not "just" Linux in VM.

And anyway, just the way it lets me manage multiple instances of Linux is far superior to anything I experienced on Mac or Linux itself. By the current standards, Wine is just _painful_ to use. Meanwhile Windows window management and the terminal app have made great strides in last couple years.

[shmerl]

WSL2 still can't be superior to Linux proper even if it's not just Linux in VM (which it mostly is, just with specific integration with Windows). There is still hypervisor involved no matter how you slice it.

So if you do need to run something that's Windows only but can work in Wine, I'd totally recommend running using Wine ditch Windows for good. For me it's a benefit, not a hindrance.

And you can run multiple VMs on Linux too if you need actual Windows still (KVM, virt-manager and etc. are quite handy).