XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On 20 Nov 2025 02:46:25 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:   
      
   > On Nov 19, 2025 at 7:24:00 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote   
   > <10flu3v$2lsr1$1@dont-email.me>:   
   >   
   >> Windows needed WSL (1 and 2) because it lacked a Linux-like   
   >> environment.   
   >>   
   >> macOS is the same. “Unix” is not what matters any more; now it’s   
   >> very specifically “Linux”.   
   >   
   > I do not share your black and white world view.   
      
   Just look at the facts: Microsoft first tried WSL1, to emulate a Linux   
   “personality” on top of the Windows kernel. They couldn’t make that   
   work. So they had to bring in an actual full-function Linux kernel in   
   WSL2.   
      
   If macOS really was “Unix” in any way that mattered, they could have   
   done the same thing as WSL1: provide a “personality” to emulate the   
   minor differences (one would assume) between “Unix” and “Linux” on top   
   of their existing kernel, which is already supposedly “Unix”   
   (according to you anyway, given it itself seems to say otherwise).   
      
   But Apple couldn’t get that to work either. Or it didn’t even bother   
   to try. Instead, it went straight to a WSL2-style approach, bringing   
   in an actual full-function Linux kernel from the get-go.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)