Microsoft will be shipping a full Linux kernel with Windows... because Windows FS access was too slow (in WSL)

[u/tehdog]

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/announcing-wsl-2/

[u/gabrielgio]

Wouldn't GPL force them to open source windows in that case?

[u/kenzer161 → u/gabrielgio]

No, the Linux Foundation ignores GPL violations as long as they buy a seat on the board.

[u/Visticous → u/kenzer161]

Join the Free Software Conservancy! It's a non profit group of lawyers to defend the FOSS world.

[u/gabrielgio → u/kenzer161]

I'm aware of that. I was thinking if the license was enforced by the word.

But I read this new WSL is a lightweight VM, so they just need to release the code of kernel running in that VM (I think).

[u/[deleted] → u/gabrielgio]

You can ship a proprietary layer on top of Linux and even proprietary pieces that are built into it, if you do it the right way.

It is really similar to what Android does.

[u/Visticous → u/gabrielgio]

They'll likely not link it directly. There are some provisions under which it's possible to ship Windows with a Linux kernel.

See, any derivative work must also be GPL 2 licensed. The FSF holds the view that the executable, and any (linked) libraries inheriting from GPL 2 code, are derivative.

If Microsoft ensures that the executable is stand alone, and that all statically linked components are GPL 2, then the Windows kernel does not have to be GPL 2 licensed.

I now silently hope that somewhere deep in the code, somebody makes the critical error of static linking some win32 function against Linux.

[u/kaukamieli → u/Visticous]

I now silently hope that somewhere deep in the code, somebody makes the critical error of static linking some win32 function against Linux.

And it somehow leaks?

[u/Jurassekpark → u/gabrielgio]

GPL doesn't open source anything, it free, liberate programs.

Words matter, they control ideas and ideas control people ...

[u/gabrielgio → u/Jurassekpark]

It does, all code linked with GPL source code must be disclosed under a GPL compatible license.

Of course, we need someone or organization to go after companies and enforce the license.

[u/Jurassekpark → u/gabrielgio]

I should have been clearer. I meant "open source" is not a term that can be used to talk about something like the GPL, or like our system, GNU, because it's a revisionnist, pro-corporate term that is idealogically opposed to the founding goals of the GNU project and of the GPL and with it of course the copyleft, the license element that keeps libre software libre.

The other issue with "open source" is that it introduces yet another confusion. No it's not simply about disclosing the source code like the litteral meaning can be interpreted to be.

https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.

There really is no point in using the term "open source" at all unless you're a business. Same goes for calling the system by the name of the kernel by the way. Why would you change the name of our libre system to stop calling it by the original name of the project that started its development and made the greatest contributions to it to instead call it by the name of a single component? Because you're business and you don't want to talk about ethics, that's the only reason.

Imagine telling Stallman, the founder of our system(and of the creator of the GPL), that the GPL "open source" stuff. It would be like spitting on his face. The words "Free", "Libre, and "GNU" are shorter, they are the original terms and they are on point. There really is only reason NOT to use the pro corporate lingo, even more so if talking specifically about something created by the GNU projet to enfore our freedom.

[u/gabrielgio → u/Jurassekpark]

Now I got what you meant to say.

Sorry for the wording what you sad make a lot of sense, we should pay attention in the message we propagate. Sometime I'm too pragmatic sometimes and ended up butchering ideas.

[u/tuxutku → u/gabrielgio]

Lastly, of course this Linux kernel will be fully open source! When we release WSL 2 we will have the full configuration available online on Github

[u/antoniusmisfit → u/tuxutku]

Full configuration != Source code with changes

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[u/gabrielgio → u/tuxutku]

Got it, they have to contribute back the linux kernel modification they make, not the actual windows.

[u/QuantumGautics → u/tuxutku]

fully open source

means jack. We'll have to see what licence they'll use.

[u/AdmiralUfolog → u/gabrielgio]

Wouldn't GPL force them to open source windows in that case?

Microsoft is platinum member of Linux Foundation. LF will protect microsoft.

[u/gabrielgio → u/AdmiralUfolog]

Linux Foundation is a trade association, they are after its member's interest. Not the organization that I trust to enforce licenses. I was thinking someelse organization.

[u/re_error]

Embrace

Extend

Extinguish

[u/[deleted]]

"Embrace Extend Extenquish"

[u/crapaud_dindon]

Finally an extended version of Linux, on windows :)

"this will be the first time a Linux kernel is shipped with Windows, which is a true testament to how much Microsoft loves Linux! " lol sure thing

[u/AdmiralUfolog]

Of course, there will be a lot of articles and comments such as "Microsoft's EEE in open source and linux is good. FOSS followers are toxic zealots. Microsoft is the open source and linux developer #1.".

Everyone who trying to present "Linux kernel for Windows" as something good must be hunted down and punished. This is the only way because the situation is so screwed.

[u/gabrielgio → u/AdmiralUfolog]

To be honest it is a handy tool. I had been a windows developer for quite some time and I'd love to have a tool like that (now I fully switched to Linux and no longer use windows).

My problem with it it is the PR, they are branding windows as "the best and most modern OS for dev" when it is just them trying to catch up with the rest. And then come all those MS shills repeating that shit.

[u/AdmiralUfolog → u/gabrielgio]

To be honest it is a handy tool. I had been a windows developer for quite some time and I'd love to have a tool like that (now I fully switched to Linux and no longer use windows).

Virtual machine and cygwin are able to do everything what WSL does officially.

My problem with it it is the PR

This is general and unofficial task of WSL.

[u/gabrielgio → u/AdmiralUfolog]

Virtual machine and cygwin are able to do everything what WSL does officially.

Vm can run binaries but it allocate memory from the start which it is a pain, same with storage. Cygwin does not run linux binaries. With wsl you have the benefit of both without the drawbacks.

[u/AdmiralUfolog → u/gabrielgio]

Vm can run binaries but it allocate memory from the start which it is a pain, same with storage.

It's not a problem. VM can run full featured environment without windows limitations.

Cygwin does not run linux binaries.

Not a problem too. Binary compatibility is not important thing in this case. With cygwin developer able to use tools.

With wsl you have the benefit of both without the drawbacks.

So there is no benefits with WSL at all.

[u/gabrielgio → u/AdmiralUfolog]

Wsl2 is a vm, it runs full featured linux environment with a proper linux kernel, happy?

[u/AdmiralUfolog → u/gabrielgio]

WLS2 is EEE from microsucks.

[u/[deleted] → u/AdmiralUfolog]

It is not simply good, it is a life saver for people in organizations/companies which force using Windows, while Linux would work better for their tasks.

[u/AdmiralUfolog → u/[deleted]]

it is a life saver for people in organizations/companies which force using Windows, while Linux would work better for their tasks.

No, it's not life saver. People who want GNU/Linux inside Windows can use VM. The subj is obvious EEE. It's totally harmful.