Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by forrestthewoods 341 days ago
Forcing Windows users to use WSL is generally a non-starter. That’s just not how things work. You can force someone to change their entire execution environment without further consequences.

If you only support WSL then you don’t support Windows, imho.
1 comments
1718627440 341 days ago
I see were you are coming from, but programs also depend on an SQL server, a python installation or a Java instance. You also don't complain about device drivers, support for filesystems, the network stack and hooks to Windows Explorer.

In the end it is just part of the OS and a bunch of extra userspace programs. I mean nobody complains about the Windows Subsystem for Win32.

But yeah, you can just use a non-MS GNU/Windows implementation instead, do you like that better?

Is it possible though? Is it possible to have isolated WSLs (per programm)?

link
forrestthewoods 341 days ago
> Is it possible though? Is it possible to have isolated WSLs (per programm)?

Maybe. But my experience is that there is very little “program code” and it’s mostly “library code”.

And if you did have a program that required WSL and you followed the UNIX model of bash chaining programs then you’re now mandating the “meta program” be run under WSL.

I treat WSL as a hacky workaround for dealing with bad citizens. It’s not a desirable target environment. It exists as a gap stop until someone does it right. YMMV.

link
1718627440 341 days ago
> But my experience is that there is very little “program code” and it’s mostly “library code”.

Sorry I am confused, what does that refer to?

> you’re now mandating the “meta program” be run under WSL

As long as bash and the tools are in path, can't you run any program normally?

> WSL as a hacky workaround for dealing with bad citizens

Yes, but some parts are out of scope for C and you need to target the OS. Also f.e. passing around file descriptors and sockets are convenient.

link