Bad Idea ?? WSL on Win 10

[Ow That Hurts]

Running WSL / Ubuntu on Win 10 using a GUI seems to me like a pretty bad idea. Am I wrong?

On Win 10, it appears you have to be using a preview release of windows, and to do that, it looks like one has to turn on the OPTIONAL diagnostics reporting, which sends even MORE of your usage data to Microsoft. (Microsoft calls it being enrolled in their Insider Program or something like that.)

Yes, you can "run" Ubuntu on Win 10 while not using a preview release (and only allowing for the required diagnostic info being sent to Microsoft). But it is limited to the terminal (as far as I understand) and for Noobs like myself, not having a GUI is pretty painful.

Anyway, just ranting. Guess I am going to have to figure out some way to dual boot instead of using WSL. Plus, there isn't a way to use Mint in WSL anyway so there is that, too.

[ivar]

On Win 10, it appears you have to be using a preview release of windows

I've been running WSL on regular win10 releases, but the win10 build has to be recent enough. It's a work still in progress it seems, ease of installation and capabilities seems to improve for each release

[Ow That Hurts]

On Win 10, it appears you have to be using a preview release of windows

I've been running WSL on regular win10 releases, but the win10 build has to be recent enough. It's a work still in progress it seems, ease of installation and capabilities seems to improve for each release

Thanks for the reply.

For a noob like myself, I really would prefer a GUI interface. I don't think there is a way to get a GUI on the version of Win 10 I am running.

My system information in windows says Win 10 Home Version 10.0.19044 Build 19044

No idea if it is possible to get a higher build without having to get in to the Preview release of windows.

[ivar]

yup , 19044 is the most current regular win10 release,

According to this link, windows 11 is needed to get out of the box gui support.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/window ... s/gui-apps

I've got a couple test pcs with win11 + wsl installed but havent had time to play with it yet

[Ow That Hurts]

yup , 19044 is the most current regular win10 release,

According to this link, windows 11 is needed to get out of the box gui support.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/window ... s/gui-apps

I've got a couple test pcs with win11 + wsl installed but havent had time to play with it yet

Thank you for the reply.

Apparently Win10 can use the GUI for Ubuntu but need to use a preview version of Win10 and that has issues (less stable??? Optional telemetry has to be enabled.)

[Portreve]

Not really sure why one wouldn't just install VirtualBox (or, if you really want to spend money, VMWare) and install your Linux distro of choice.

On my tower, which is dual-booted between W11 and LM (LM is my daily driver, W11 is there for fooling-around and learning purposes) I have VirtualBox installed in Windows and right now I'm playing around with Ubuntu 22.04.

[Ow That Hurts]

Not really sure why one wouldn't just install VirtualBox (or, if you really want to spend money, VMWare) and install your Linux distro of choice.

On my tower, which is dual-booted between W11 and LM (LM is my daily driver, W11 is there for fooling-around and learning purposes) I have VirtualBox installed in Windows and right now I'm playing around with Ubuntu 22.04.

Well... firstly I am a noob (still) so not really sure which way to go. I thought that by using WSL and ubuntu I would be able to share my files between Windows and Ubuntu without having to jump through hoops.

Also I thought performance would be better since - and I could be totally wrong about this - only a part of the memory (and cores???) are dedicated toward the virtual machine.

[antikythera]

I avoid WSL and WSL2 wherever possible. I have tried them both and still prefer a proper Virtualbox install or failing that VMware. WSL and WSL2 are nowhere near as fully featured as a proper VM. They are primarily geared towards interacting with a linux server over a terminal session only. WSL just for Ext4 support is not worth the bother.

You can share files between Linux and Windows without jumping through hoops, have a small 'scratch' partition that's either FAT32 or NTFS if you do not want to give your linux access to the main windows or your main windows user data partition. Even a thumb drive could serve this purpose if you are space limited.

[Portreve]

Not really sure why one wouldn't just install VirtualBox (or, if you really want to spend money, VMWare) and install your Linux distro of choice.

On my tower, which is dual-booted between W11 and LM (LM is my daily driver, W11 is there for fooling-around and learning purposes) I have VirtualBox installed in Windows and right now I'm playing around with Ubuntu 22.04.

Well... firstly I am a noob (still) so not really sure which way to go. I thought that by using WSL and ubuntu I would be able to share my files between Windows and Ubuntu without having to jump through hoops.

Also I thought performance would be better since - and I could be totally wrong about this - only a part of the memory (and cores???) are dedicated toward the virtual machine.

Virtual machine software generally lets you set up shares between it and the host system so that you can move files back and forth. That's something you have to deliberately set up because, of course, you may want to maintain 100% sandboxed isolation.

I actually bought (gasp!) a copy of Paragon Software's Linux File Systems for Windows and use that (not real often, but from time to time) to move data back and forth between my dual-boot configuration when I'm booted into Windows. They also make a range (rather comprehensive, too) of drive management software for Linux, macOS, and Windows, which is really cool.

The main reason I have VirtualBox set up in Windows is so I can play around with different Linux distros without having to do full re-installs on bare metal. Using this process to "distro-hop" really makes it convenient. And distro-hopping will help you to see what the different ones out there are like in terms of the different desktop environments, as well as the underpinnings of each, and which one(s) you like or might find useful. If you listen to Linux podcasts like I do, you'll regularly hear about Garuda, Arch, Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, and others, and sometimes it's nice to have a neat-and-tidy way to try and blow away an install if you screw something up or get tired of it or discover it's just not for you.

And speaking of podcasts, here's the ones I listen to regularly and really enjoy:

• Linux Unplugged
• Destination Linux

[Ow That Hurts]

I avoid WSL and WSL2 wherever possible. I have tried them both and still prefer a proper Virtualbox install or failing that VMware. WSL and WSL2 are nowhere near as fully featured as a proper VM. They are primarily geared towards interacting with a linux server over a terminal session only. WSL just for Ext4 support is not worth the bother.

You can share files between Linux and Windows without jumping through hoops, have a small 'scratch' partition that's either FAT32 or NTFS if you do not want to give your linux access to the main windows or your main windows user data partition. Even a thumb drive could serve this purpose if you are space limited.

Thank you for the advice and elaboration.

I will look into some options. I need to buy more storage, anyway, since my two X 4TB data drives are full (and neither one is acting as a backup... kind of risky, I know).

Thanks again for your suggestions and your patience with my noob questions.

[Ow That Hurts]

Not really sure why one wouldn't just install VirtualBox (or, if you really want to spend money, VMWare) and install your Linux distro of choice.

On my tower, which is dual-booted between W11 and LM (LM is my daily driver, W11 is there for fooling-around and learning purposes) I have VirtualBox installed in Windows and right now I'm playing around with Ubuntu 22.04.

Well... firstly I am a noob (still) so not really sure which way to go. I thought that by using WSL and ubuntu I would be able to share my files between Windows and Ubuntu without having to jump through hoops.

Also I thought performance would be better since - and I could be totally wrong about this - only a part of the memory (and cores???) are dedicated toward the virtual machine.

Virtual machine software generally lets you set up shares between it and the host system so that you can move files back and forth. That's something you have to deliberately set up because, of course, you may want to maintain 100% sandboxed isolation.

I actually bought (gasp!) a copy of Paragon Software's Linux File Systems for Windows and use that (not real often, but from time to time) to move data back and forth between my dual-boot configuration when I'm booted into Windows. They also make a range (rather comprehensive, too) of drive management software for Linux, macOS, and Windows, which is really cool.

The main reason I have VirtualBox set up in Windows is so I can play around with different Linux distros without having to do full re-installs on bare metal. Using this process to "distro-hop" really makes it convenient. And distro-hopping will help you to see what the different ones out there are like in terms of the different desktop environments, as well as the underpinnings of each, and which one(s) you like or might find useful. If you listen to Linux podcasts like I do, you'll regularly hear about Garuda, Arch, Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, and others, and sometimes it's nice to have a neat-and-tidy way to try and blow away an install if you screw something up or get tired of it or discover it's just not for you.

And speaking of podcasts, here's the ones I listen to regularly and really enjoy:

• Linux Unplugged
• Destination Linux

Thank you for the detailed elaboration and your suggestions. I truly appreciate them.

They say that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," and I think I certainly qualify as having "a little knowledge," when it comes to Linux. Still trying to get a lot of the basic concepts down.

The other option I was looking at was sticking yet ANOTHER ssd in my box (I have two SSDs and two spinning drives already) and putting LM 20.03 on it and dual booting. It is only a 125GB SSD so it might be a little too lean??? I probably need to get some bigger HDD's than the two x 4TB drives I have already as they fill up quickly (I am a professional photographer / videographer so hard drives fill up quickly)

[Portreve]

I probably need to get some bigger HDD's than the two x 4TB drives I have already as they fill up quickly (I am a professional photographer / videographer so hard drives fill up quickly)

The folks on Destination Linux recently did an entire episode on Adobe alternatives, including Krita, PhotoPea, and a bunch of others.

Destination Linux: 281: Linux Alternatives to Adobe Photoshop, Premiere Pro, Illustrator & more

I personally found this episode to be very enlightening, even though my professional creative background is just print (i.e. desktop publishing).

There are additions you can get for GIMP, btw, to bring the user interface somewhat closer to that of Photoshop.

[Ow That Hurts]

I probably need to get some bigger HDD's than the two x 4TB drives I have already as they fill up quickly (I am a professional photographer / videographer so hard drives fill up quickly)

The folks on Destination Linux recently did an entire episode on Adobe alternatives, including Krita, PhotoPea, and a bunch of others.

Destination Linux: 281: Linux Alternatives to Adobe Photoshop, Premiere Pro, Illustrator & more

I personally found this episode to be very enlightening, even though my professional creative background is just print (i.e. desktop publishing).

There are additions you can get for GIMP, btw, to bring the user interface somewhat closer to that of Photoshop.

Thank you for the input and the links.

That would be good because for some reason Photoshop has become a COMPLETE memory hog on my Win 10 machine. Even if I only open ONE photo (24MP), it uses up 90% of my RAM (20tal RAM 24GB). Then if I close the document (but leave the photoshop open but with no open documents), it still uses up 16GB.

I've been on the Adobe support forums but have gotten pretty much no suggestions from anyone.

[antikythera]

From experience with this, PhotoGIMP will run on windows too via chocolately but it's a similar thing to flatpaks for linux.

However, while it looks like Photoshop and some of the menus are converted it still works like GIMP rather than Photoshop so there will be a small learning curve. I still prefer Photoshop CS2 for editing DDS files (yes it's an ancient build and yes it crashes occasionally on W10/W11 but it still just about works - I notice it's ridiculous CPU usage rather than RAM because it's 32-bit and only sees 3096MB of the 32GB installed)

There's another bit of software called Darktable which is the linux equivalent. Both PhotoGIMP and Darktable run best with GNOME, Cinnamon, MATE or XFCE.

KDE have a Qt equivalent of CorelDRAW called Krita. That can edit photos too but it's more art orientated.

FYI GIMP and Darktable can handle RAW digital images fine.

[Ow That Hurts]

From experience with this, PhotoGIMP will run on windows too via chocolately but it's a similar thing to flatpaks for linux.

However, while it looks like Photoshop and some of the menus are converted it still works like GIMP rather than Photoshop so there will be a small learning curve. I still prefer Photoshop CS2 for editing DDS files (yes it's an ancient build and yes it crashes occasionally on W10/W11 but it still just about works - I notice it's ridiculous CPU usage rather than RAM because it's 32-bit and only sees 3096MB of the 32GB installed)

There's another bit of software called Darktable which is the linux equivalent. Both PhotoGIMP and Darktable run best with GNOME, Cinnamon, MATE or XFCE.

KDE have a Qt equivalent of CorelDRAW called Krita. That can edit photos too but it's more art orientated.

FYI GIMP and Darktable can handle RAW digital images fine.

Thanks for your suggestions and sharing your experience with this. Really appreciate it.

[antikythera]

You can get around the TPM2 requirement for W11 but it's not worth bothering, they will close that loophole off in the next feature update. No registry hack is required, I did it with a stock ISO burnt to DVD.

[Pierre]

it is somewhat, about getting an Native Speed Result.
for any WSL based app ... initially as an CLI area,
then, eventually as an GUI app, as well.

they, most likely, will get lots of Linux GUI programs to run.
- it's an niche market area, though.
it will only appeal to those that wish to have both MS-O/S & Linux O/S
running simultaneously .. on the same hardware.
in the same manner that
Crossover can run Windows Software, at an native performance.

it's also about MS competing with other Tech Companies,
in order to promote their own products.

[Portreve]

CodeWeavers is a commercial company which produces a paid-for version of WINE¹, called Crossover, as Pierre mentioned above. They are a very well-respected company, and Crossover is a well-respected product because what they do and how they do it is totally transparent, and because they contribute their development efforts back to the WINE project. Also, they maintain an extensive and rather brutally honest compatibility list, and CW will be the first to say what they make may or may not work for you, and you shouldn't have to give them money for something that won't work for you.

That said, the thing you need to realize about WINE and Crossover is that the Windows compatibility layer it creates in many cases runs a Windows 32 bit or 64 bit program as well as, or even faster, than a full installation of Windows, but there's also a lot of things it will not run well or at all. So, it's not a 100% solution.

Here's Crossover's compatibility list and, as you'll see, it's pretty comprehensive.

---

¹ WINE stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. The name is called a "recursive anagram" because part of the anagram stands for the anagram itself.

[MurphCID]

I will gleefully admit my ignorance of WSL, does it mean that you can run Linux in a virtual machine on Windows? That is somewhat interesting, but how does it work in practice? I know that recently Windows Power Shell is attempting to give Windows a more Linux like experience where you can do more things in the terminal where before they made it really hard to do those things.

[Ow That Hurts]

I will gleefully admit my ignorance of WSL, does it mean that you can run Linux in a virtual machine on Windows? That is somewhat interesting, but how does it work in practice? I know that recently Windows Power Shell is attempting to give Windows a more Linux like experience where you can do more things in the terminal where before they made it really hard to do those things.

I am not nearly technically profecient enough to give a good overview of it.

My understanding is that it isn't a virtual box, but a way to run Linux INSIDE of Windows. Something along the line of Linux running while still using windows. My understanding (again, I could be wrong), is that unlike a virtual machine where you have to choose only a certain amount of processor power or RAM to use by the virtual machine, the linux subsystem would be able to use ALL the resources of the computer.