[heresie-dabord]

WSL is an "embrace-extend-extinguish" feature.[1] It isn't good enough to be Linux, but it's good enough to draw people to make the change that you did.

An operating system should boot my computer and give me access to my hardware on my terms. Full stop.

Any exfiltration of telemetry about my use of the OS without my uncoerced consent is a much worse quirk than any bug I have ever encountered in Linux.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

[tracker1]

I see it as the opposite in practice... I've now worked at 3 different companies (Windows/.Net shops) since WSL has been available where most dev work is actually in WSL, and deployed to Linux servers. And even grumblings about wanting to switch full dev to Linux and abandoning Windows altogether for at least dev work. Current job, the IT security guys are already dogfooding Linux...

It's an exfiltration path in practice, from what I've seen far more than an ingratiation path, despite what MS's intentions may have been. Once you get devs able to spin up a DB via Docker in under a minute vs. the desktop installs, refresh/update, etc... it's a path away from MS.

[TimTheTinker]

Microsoft built WSL because software development and SaaS servers were moving inexorably towards *nix, and Windows was bleeding developers and MSDN subscribers. It was a 'stop the bleeding' move, not an EEE play. They needed to keep corporate developers on Windows, and give IT departments a good answer for "we need Linux support" that didn't involve a MS license count drop. Windows-oriented IT departments also appreciate being able to support developers who need Linux without having to add support for another OS.

There may even be some developers who prefer WSL on Windows over Linux, especially at work. When Group Policy turns off all the adware/spyware and annoyances in Windows 11 Enterprise, it isn't quite as horrible of an experience as it is at home.