XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com   
      
   On Nov 19, 2025 at 9:55:27 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote   
   <10fm6vu$2noei$1@dont-email.me>:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   WSL1 made sense for Windows because Windows had no real POSIX layer to   
   protect, so Microsoft could bolt on a syscall-translation shim without   
   breaking anything. And then they moved to WSL2. That allows people to run   
   pretty much any Linux software. Why NOT do this?   
      
   macOS is in a different situation. Its BSD/Mach stack and POSIX APIs are used   
   all over the system. Trying to bolt Linux syscalls and semantics onto that --   
   with Linux's interface differences, device models, virtual file system, event   
   notification system, namespaces, and so on -- isn't a "minor difference," and   
   it would risk breaking actual macOS software.   
      
   So Apple didn't skip a WSL1-style layer because it "couldn't." It skipped it   
   because a Linux "personality" doesn't make architectural sense on top of   
   macOS's existing Unix core. Running a real Linux kernel in a VM is simply the   
   more reasonable, easier, and less error-prone option.   
      
   And yes, Apple (and MS) pulling in open source pieces to do that is completely   
   normal. That's the entire point of open source: use what works. You seem to be   
   arguing that open source should not be used, or that it is a sign of failure   
   when it is. I do not get that. Be happy Linux is valuable enough where both MS   
   and Apple want to provide the ability to get some of its benefits on top of   
   the benefits they already offer.   
      
      
   --   
   It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)