Technology

the awkwardly-written title is referring to ubuntu via WSL ("on Windows 11") as opposed to just running linux ("native").

the article is pretty clear what it's about, even the caption on the first image straight up says what i just wrote. you read it instead of just reading the title, right?

I chided someone earlier today for what I thought was a neckbeard superiority complex. It was a cheap shot. It's a lot better than it used to be. The nerds tolerate you if you use Mint.

if you read the article instead of just the title, you'd just know it's WSL instead of having to speculate.

I remember on Reddit once some guy was talking about how he installed Ubuntu and it only had a terminal no GUI and it didn't have APT only Snap. Took me a minute but I figured out he had installed Ubuntu Core or whatever they call their embedded system.

And given Canonical's corporate garbage fire website I can see how. I kinda hate the brand names they all independently come up with. Fedora isn't much better, the way you learn Fedora Silverblue is the immutable version that comes with the Gnome desktop is you ask on Reddit, because their website is 94% marketing drivel.

I like Ubuntu on my laptop. I need a new desktop because I can only support Debain and Debian is barebones.

I stupidly love Ubuntu because to me it's still Debain but easy.

Debian is chill and all but I love the user interface and ease of access with Ubuntu.

Not really. Microsoft did WSL to keep Linux users from leaving, and to gain back Windows server share. Both worked, but keeping me in Windows by allowing me to use Linux means I'm still using, expanding my usage, and becoming more dependent on Linux.

It's exposing Windows devs to Linux, and getting people using it. Every WSL installation of Ubuntu is an installation that likely would never have been done otherwise.

Users with local non-AD connected systems (which bypass GPOs)

Found your problem. Nothing to do with Linux/WSL.

Windows ~~that~~ needs the Ol' Yeller treatment.

FTFY

I'm guilty of using WSL to bypass what the IT department has done, but that's partly due to our IT department being borderline useless. To prove my point to them one time, I took a project and compiled it in Windows normally, in a fresh Windows VM, and in WSL. A 20 second compile in WSL took 2 minutes on the Windows host.

My work would be impossible without WSL, and yes I am guilty of hiding from the security systems... Because the security systems are so invasive they keep locking files I'm trying to open so IDEs don't even work properly under Windows.

Dang. WSL is literally the only thing that maintains my sanity when I am forced to do anything on Windows. I don't work in an enterprise environment, mind you.

Real answer: this is talking about computers with windows 11 installed that also run Ubuntu through a service called WSL, or Windows Subsystem for Linux; basically you have a windows 11 pc that can do linux stuff too.

A native Ubuntu machine would be installed directly to the hard drive and booted that way.

Native Linux PCs speak in penguinese and celebrate their mesiah the great Torvaldius giver of kernels.

My guess is not just traditional developers, but anyone doing any amount of coding, like data scientists, business analysts, etc.

Especially if they're using AI, those tools work better on Linux, or as is the case most places, wsl2 inside Windows.

I believe Windows is kept because of the Office tools. However, Windows needs 12 layers of security tools that constantly get in your way, so the path of least resistance is to just stay in your wsl2 sandbox.

The knee jerk reaction to this from enterprise IT is often to restrict access to WSL. This solves the problem, but creates disgruntled users who will continue to try and work around it.

What they should consider, in my opinion, is giving these people real Linux workstations that can be enrolled in group policies, SSO, and all that good stuff. Commercial vendors of Linux will support these use cases.

Some places roll out Macs, which work almost as well, but the hardware is more expensive. Hardware and commercial software support may be better, though, I don't know.

I think either is a superior alternative to Windows.

That was true 15 years ago. There are now plenty distributions focused towards new users. And to be fair standard distributions have become very user friendly.

I installed Fedora on my mother’s laptop because she was complaining about it being slow and loud, on top of windows occasionally breaking after updates. She’s had no problem so far and seems to be happy with it. I just set it to auto update everything every week and that’s it.

Its just shittier Debian.

I like mint for easier access to newer packages/drovers for my gaming VM but that's about it.

Your average new user (non gamer)isn't going to know about window emulators so I can see why they go ubuntu when it's supported by software such as pcoip for example.

Despite that it and any windows program can be run on any distro using free stuff like heroic if you want a fancy button

Functionally all new apps are "Linux development work", as modern C# solutions are containerised and hosted on Linux servers.

Microsoft gave up on Windows servers a decade ago when they released .net Core, as it was the sound solution to ensure continual growth of Azure and fighting off Java adoption hosted through AWS/GCP

.net framework is a niche framework now, which just a few legacy platforms run today.

However the reason IT requires Mac and Windows for everyone, is because they can lock those machines down. Like mad down, they don't want to build software to lock Linux machines down from a central place.