|
|
|
|
|
|
by pjmlp
71 days ago
|
|
|
Nope, Microsoft redid the design due to the amount of Linux syscalls that were still left to implement. What is this goal post moving? First the was file system access, then it became being unstable, what is going to be the next point? Let me make it easier, WSL 1.0 did not support the syscalls for X Windows implementation. |
|
|
If you can't touch the Linux files with Windows tools without corrupting them, your implementation is unstable.
WSL1 was unstable, unfit for purpose, and never worked properly.
It was abandoned in favor of just running real Linux in a VM.