Maybe I'm in the minority but I prefer keeping my GNU/Linux and Windows installations separate, with each OS on its own drive. My Linux setup is secure, free of proprietary software and under my full control. When I run tcpdump, I'm met with a clean log where every packet is one I recognize. I get to use my favorite window manager (awesomewm) and I don't have to worry about forced updates. My Windows install is quite a different beast - automatic updates, mostly proprietary software and no major customizations other than performance tweaks and what the OS allows. I use it for gaming and media, and it works great. Boot times are very short with SSDs so restarting is not a problem. No compatibility issues, no fussing about with drivers and no need for translation layers like the Windows Subsystem or WINE; just two independent OSs that never let me down.<p>That said, no hate toward this project. Arch Linux is probably my favorite distro (although I'm on Xubuntu at the moment).
I am currently dual booting between Arch Linux and Windows 10.<p>Moving to something like this one day makes me conflicted. On one hand I feel like I would betray open source, on the other hand I wouldn't have to restart my machine to play games...
This pulls something from <a href="https://cdn.turbo.run/alwsl/alwsl.sfs" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.turbo.run/alwsl/alwsl.sfs</a> - what's this URL? How can anyone tell this is related to Arch Linux? Why do the readmes link to 404s? All of this seems rather unfinished. Could have polished at least the github presence a little.<p>Also, what are the advantages compared to solution like <a href="https://github.com/RoliSoft/WSL-Distribution-Switcher" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/RoliSoft/WSL-Distribution-Switcher</a>, which allows selecting different distributions, including Arch Linux?
I really hope Microsoft continues development on WSL until it's production-ready. Right now both piping and filesystem interop need a lot of work.
If WSL were truly Linux compatible, then why would anyone need to adapt Linux software to run under it?<p>This is the first step: embrace. The next step: extend. Apparently it's already happening, as people scurry to adapt shit so that it works with WSL. Next you'll have companies requesting that all Linux software be "adapted" to work under WSL, and if it isn't, they won't buy it.<p>Once this happens, Microsoft can proceed to step 3: Extinguish. How? Easy - by adding incompatible shit to WSL. If companies succeed in forcing Linux software vendors to provide a WSL-specific version, they will have to be compatible with these WSL extension. Voila - now they are supporting a new Microsoft platform that Microsoft controls.<p>Back before many of you were born, Microsoft killed entire product categories and companies by providing free versions of Office when it was first introduced, and making it compatible with competitors' file formats. Is it free now? Hell no, it's their main source of revenue!<p>Can they repeat the same hat trick with Linux? Who knows, but they damn sure are gonna try. Anyone who thinks "Microsoft loves Linux" needs to take a history lesson. The only Linux Microsoft would love would have a dead penguin for a logo.
Main advantage I see above Ubuntu would be the Arch User Repo (AUR) which contains almost all software you can think of. Although that can change when Snap picks up speed. Snapd is also available under Arch though. Moreover, Arch will be much more current in general.
The FAQ link is broken on the page, any ELI5 on what this brings beyond using Arch's package manager and the general goodness of choice?
Both of which are awesome in and of themselves, just wasn't sure if there's more here before I jump in.