Debian in WSL not Ubuntu
Debian in WSL not Ubuntu
If you are using WSL for programming in Windows, you should use Debian.
Well that was a whole load of nothing.
Ubuntu in WSL comes with systemd enabled. Debian doesn't, and you have to enable it yourself.
That's why I chose to have people use Ubuntu in WSL, despite the other downsides. One less step to setup a Linux environment on Windows makes the process smoother.
That's a fair enough reason. I personally never noticed because the "this isn't running" message is pretty clear to me. But I can see how that's a potential blocker for newer Linux users.
I use Arch in WSL BTW. This is not a joke its actually quite nice
How do you get systemd to work properly? Maybe because I tried to follow MS's "use your own distro" instructions instead of using something prepackaged?
Surprisingly just setting the systemd flag in WSL settings worked, though for a long time I simply didn't use systemd.
Maybe because I tried to follow MS's "use your own distro" instructions instead of using something prepackaged?
Not op, and I don't care about
systemd, but...When I've used anything I wanted to substantially modify, I've followed the "use your own distro" instructions. In the past I've done this because WSL had a strong assumption of exactly one copy of each distro, and I like to abuse it for more.
Overall, I've had a better time with the the "bring your own distro" instructions. But some of my experiences with WSL were before they even got the Windows Store installer working correctly.
More recently, I recall Windows Store being fine for stock Ubuntu and for stock Debian. But I didn't find the "bring your own distro" instructions to be much trouble, either. My perhaps faulty memory is that it took maybe ten minutes, last time I used them.
if you encounter problems just search online or ask AI, it’s fairly simple
Good luck with that. All the answers are going to assume WSL is using Ubuntu.
Why do Linux advocates try so desperately to overcomplicate things?
Can't you you just be satisfied a Windows using is experimenting with Linux. Why does it have to be your ideological strain of Linux they use.
I'm forced to use it at work. It's the worst because it has so many limitations and performance issues. I'm not satisfied because it's assumed to be an equivalent and it's not.
All the answers are going to assume WSL is using Ubuntu.
Every recipe that I have ever encountered for Ubuntu worked on Debian, except the recipes involving Snaps, which were inevitably much simpler on Debian. And I haven't seen anything useful under WSL (cli tools) packaged better as a snap anyway.
Why do Linux advocates try so desperately to overcomplicate things?
Computers are complicated. Linux advocates just aren't being paid to lie about it.
In this case, this is a simple 7 character (edit: plus a (optional) one line command to enable systemd) change that can save a newbie a lot of trouble, and comes with
no downside.the downside that systemd isn't enabled by default. (Edit: a good point made below.)There's very few cases where Debian and Ubuntu are different at on the command line (which WSL is). In those very few cases, anyone using WSL is going to have a much better time on Debian, because they're more likely to find a working recipe.
The exact reasons for this are nuanced, but come down - folks liked me publishing recipes don't target Ubuntu anymore, because I wasn't (as a package maintainer) invited to the Snap party. Which is fine. Flatpak does the same job, in an open way.
So for the 98% of recipes that predate Snap, there's no difference to be had as a user. For the cutting edge 2% of new stuff, newbies are increasingly better off on Debian.
(Edit: In case anyone was wondering, I really, personally, don't like Ubuntu, because it has Snaps. I'm aware that makes me a meme.
Snaps are bad for the community, and bad for the user.
Some of us understand why, and do our best to mention it politely, every so often, to save our peers a headache or two.
That said, folks who need hand-held through the specifics of why Snap sucks would do better asking elsewhere. I am famously old and irritable.)
I'm pretty sure a year ago there was a set of users claiming systemd was the worst thing to happen to Linux since snap.
So why are you advising to change the default install of Debian to include it?
Every recipe that works for Ubuntu works for Debian,
May as well just install Ubuntu then.
For the cutting edge 2% of new stuff, newbies are increasingly better off on Debian.
Citation needed. Pretty sure this is either personal opinion or anti-canonical, anti-snap ideology.
Targeting WSL users with this rhetoric is ridiculous. If you want to tailor your own systems outside the norm then sure go ahead but claiming things will be easier for a newbie by running specific commands they don't have the context or expertise to comprehend is absurd.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
Why the new account? Did your last account get banned from spamming posts from your own blog?
ChatGPT - give me an example of what an insufferable Linux elitist would say about wsl.
"This article is not for Linux experts. If you are one and have a Windows machine (main reason is gaming), I hope you are using Debian for WSL and not Ubuntu."
How about just using Debian and not WSL?
Work computer. I'd wipe it with Linux if I could.
I use Alpine. It's enough for what I need and it doesn't take up 30G like my last Ubuntu subsystem.
"if you're a Linux expert, this article isn't for you. You're probably already using Debian if you use WSL"
As a Linux expert - yep! My distro choice under WSL is Debian, for the same reasons shared in the article.
What reasons? They gave reasons? They just said that windows fixes the flaws Debian has which is quite the "compliment".
I mean, I didn't read terribly closely, because I already made my choice.
My reason is that the benefits of Ubuntu over Debian are most noticeable in the GUI, which WSL doesn't contain.
In contrast, I find the benefits of Debian over Ubuntu to be most noticeable on the command line, which is all we get in WSL anyway.
To me this is some solid advice that I already knew.
I think there's also a fair assumption by the author that anyone running WSL isn't a total Linux newbie. I personally, think of WSL as an intermediate skill level way to run Linux, because WSL is still - frankly - a huge pain in the ass, when contrasted with trying out a bootable USB drive, and then only gives the command line, which is also a very limited way to experience Linux. (I think it will get better, but today WSL is not a way that I recommend to newbies to try out Linux.)
Hurr durr Canonical bad