[tgma]

I've been installing Linux almost universally on "Windows computers" [sic] for the past two decades or more, per your characterization. Sometimes great, sometimes meh. Your point? I am simply illustrating there's a value for WSL over bare metal in some cases, not playing the whose fault it is game.

[trelane]

Sic? You don't understand the argument at all then.

Buy computers that were designed for and ship with Linux, and with support you can call to get help. Modern hardware is far too complex to handle multiple OSes without a major effort. Assuming they even want to support anything but Windows, which most don't.

[tgma]

Two things:

First, that's not the discussion at all. The question is does WSL have valid use cases and benefits over bare metal Linux. The answer is absolutely yes. For whatever reason you have the computer in front of you and you have the choice between the two modalities (many times you don't buy it, employer does, etc.)

Second, if everyone had your attitude, seeing PCs as "Windows computers" and stayed in their lanes in the 90s and 2000s, you would not have the option of three and a half supported "Linux computers" you are alluding to today. Viva hackers who see beyond the label.

[trelane]

WSL is better than no option, sure. It's not as good as Linux on Linux hardware.

The hackers sure. Reverse engineering takes a lot of skill and my hat's off to them.

Almost everyone here, though, are not in either camp. Most have the means and ability to buy a Linux computer if they so choose. But they don't and then complain when Linux fails to run well on a system that never has had a team of dedicated system integration work on it.