XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: this@ddress.is.invalid
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 DŽOliveiro" 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.
So Apple did the right thing, but you blame them anyway!? Check.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
