XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-11-19 20:55, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   No. Apple didn't do anything that resembles what you just said.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)