Can't remember if this link came from elsewhere on LQ, or somewhere else entirely, but it's relevant to the discussions above: Google’s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary.

2 members found this post helpful.

You are still dreaming. It may appear to be linux but still is running the MS kernel and libraries underneath.

It is only Linux (by definition) if it is running the Linux kernel. May be doing so in a container such as a VM but with MS you can certainly tell it will be dependent upon the MS world. That is why it is an app and not an OS.

I'm not dreaming about anything. All I know is what multiple linux themed websites say, including this one: "Windows Subsystem for Linux 2 (which we’ll just called WSL 2 herein) brings new capabilities to the (unsurprisingly popular) ‘Bash on Windows’ feature in Windows 10.

WSL 2 is based on Linux kernel 4.9, the same kernel that Microsoft uses in its Azure cloud line. This, it says, helps “reduce Linux boot time and streamline memory use”.

This is especially notable as it means, for the first time, WSL uses a real Linux kernel. Yes: Microsoft is shipping a Linux kernel with Windows." https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/05/...system-linux-2
Emphasis mine.
It is a vm running in a Hyper-V container. All that matters to me is that it works very, very well for those things I do with linux. YMMV

Will they make it free (as in freedom)? I doubt it. I'll be very surprised if they ever make the source available, and allow people to modify and redistribute. That makes it not Linux, IMO. But if they did, it would be modified, and de-Microsoft-ed by someone, and maybe turned into something worthwhile.

They'll never not have tracking/telemetry in any software they distribute, because just like Google, Amazon and Apple, it's free of charge, but your data is theirs.

As a side, I never understood how Apple, Google and Microsoft are able to take open-source licensed projects and turn them into closed-source, while still distributing the compiled product.

WSL2 is not FOSS linux even if it uses a linux kernel.
Microsoft does the same as google has done with android. It uses a linux kernel but proprietary apps and layers outside the kernel so overall it is proprietary.

People may be able to run linux apps, but the data is not protected/private as with linux. MS has full access to everything done on that machine as you state.

It may be considered linux as it runs a linux kernel in a vm style environment, but it certainly is not the fully FOSS environment we are used to with GNU/Linux as seen in almost all linux distros.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yes, it has a linux kernel, and yes as I noted it is a VM style environment. It is NOT FOSS, nor secure, nor private as you get with one of the many GNU/Linux distros. Microsoft owns and mines everything you do on their system and WSL2 is no different in that respect. You may be able to do things you want to do in linux, but it is at the cost of totally giving up your privacy to MS data mining.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yes, I believe MS Windows allows Linux apps (programs) to operate in a virtual machine.
But this is linux apps operating in a MS Windows ecosystem.

It's not MS Windows operating in a linux ecosystem.
OP is asking if MS Windows will ever run in a linux ecosystem.

WSL sounds *to me* like a 5GB kernel! 1,000x = 100,000% bloat.

As I understand it, Mac's OSX is based on BSD, not Linux. The BSD licence, unlike GPL, allows modified versions of the software to be copywrited. BSD people often claim that GPL software isn't really free software because it doesn't allow users to do things like that with it.

2 members found this post helpful.

WSL/WSL2 is an obvious attempt to subvert Linux systems. You may use it, you may find it useful and convenient, but that doesn't change what it's all about, nor does it remove any of the valid concerns about it.

Google are working on their own OS called Fuschia - it's all MIT/BSD licenced, and a lot of it is derivative work, including the kernel. The use of permissive licensing was predictable, as one of the early goals/objectives of Android was to avoid GPL as much as possible.

To be honest I'm not overly concerned with privacy. In over 30 years of using Dos, windows, linux and a few others I've had only one virus that I know of, knock on wood. The very, very small list of things I do with which I expect extreme privacy I do with a computer that is NEVER connected to the internet.

Info concerning WSL2 kernel source code and licensing:

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Li...5.10.y/COPYING
"The WSL2-Linux-Kernel repo contains the kernel source code and configuration files for the WSL2 kernel.
The Linux Kernel is provided under:

SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note

Being under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only,
according with:

LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0

With an explicit syscall exception, as stated at:

LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note

In addition, other licenses may also apply. Please see:

Documentation/process/license-rules.rst

for more details.

All contributions to the Linux Kernel are subject to this COPYING file."

and:

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Li...x-syscall-note
"SPDX-Exception-Identifier: Linux-syscall-note
SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html
SPDX-Licenses: GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0+, GPL-1.0+, LGPL-2.0, LGPL-2.0+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-2.1+, GPL-2.0-only, GPL-2.0-or-later
Usage-Guide:
This exception is used together with one of the above SPDX-Licenses
to mark user space API (uapi) header files so they can be included
into non GPL compliant user space application code.
To use this exception add it with the keyword WITH to one of the
identifiers in the SPDX-Licenses tag:
SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX-License> WITH Linux-syscall-note
License-Text:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

Linus Torvalds"

The one thing has nothing to do with the other.

There isn't much of the classical "virus" around anymore anyhow, it's mostly spyware, adware etc. - hackers will try to gain something palpable from installing malicious software on a computer, and one might not even notice it. That's where your privacy comes in again, but most online privacy concerns have nothing to do with malicious software on one's computer.

1 members found this post helpful.

I can see how you got confused in your analysis and it is partly my fault. The three sentences making up the first paragraph of my last post are declarative. Had I been proposing a causal link between 'privacy' in the first and 'virus' in the second I would have linked them with a comma or perhaps an implicative verb instead of a period. The 3rd sentence should have been second, apologies.
Even you leave a little wiggle room with "most" in your post. No pun intended.
I re-iterate, for me, privacy concerns are vastly overblown. I really don't care if I look at something on Amazon and it pops-up on the next web site to which I go. Those things which really are of concern to me never touch the web and 99% of every piece of data I have collected or generated for the last few years are backed up multiple times in multiple ways both on and off site.
WSL2 is a great application of those things 'linux' and I predict more and more people will come to that conclusion in the coming years. To each their own.

You are both wrong about privacy. Read Windows eula. Your info will collected by MS and end up god knows where with no spyware on your PC, hacking or your PC or virus on your PC required.Whether it is voluntary privacy breach by MS or by gov't request & or hacking from other nations cyberwarfare mafias hacking of MS or gov't servers. Linux should be sourced from kernel.org, otherwise if you use WSL2, you are information is in MS eula space.

3 members found this post helpful.

When I bought my laptop, it had Windows 7 or 8 on it (I can't remember which). I booted it up because I wanted to test that the wifi worked with my router (it did). To my disgust, up came this EULA in a permanent window with no close, minimise or exit button. The only way out was to click on the Accept button. I read through it and the terms were more or less as biker_rat says. I had to give permission in advance for any and all information about my computer usage that they decided they wanted to be collected and passed to them.

I held down the power button hard, then rebooted with SystemRescue and cleared the entire drive.

3 members found this post helpful.