That does not seem to address the question. WSL2 is a VM with a custom init and graphics implementation, but still a VM. So why WSL2 and not vmware or virtualbox or ... ?

WSL2 works seamlessly within the same OS that transparently handles managing the VM. It's better integrated where I use shell scripts in dev projects built using Win dev tools, have both Win command-line and bash open in Windows Terminal, JetBrains IDEs or VS Code. VS Code and Jet Brains also lets you seamlessly open projects in WSL and build with Linux tools, needed for our Ruby Jekyll site.

Seamless cross-system access to files and programs.

Show me a VM that allows me to access the entire host and client filesystem seamlessly without barriers.

WSL allow you to do just that and for that alone it's very useful. You can automate tasks using Windows-only software (compilers, etc.) with Linux userland tools and run both Linux and Windows software without resorting to Wine or similar translation layers that come with their own quirks and drawbacks.

Want to test whether your software package works on Linux as well? No problem, just open a terminal and compile on Linux in the same file system without having to deal with shared folders and configurations.

That's the major selling point for me.

> without having to deal with shared folders and configurations.

Does that work that easily on WSL2? I thought that was mostly a WSL1 things, and thus I have not upgraded yet.

WSL2 can still communicate across file-systems, though it's not particularly advised. For that specific task WSL1 is probably faster.

Its fine for most day to day tasks, for example I have a simple "~/d" symlink to my windows "Downloads" folder that I can use to fetch files I've downloaded in windows Chrome.

It's serviceable for one-offs, but you can't do any really high throughput stuff with that since it's going through a network protocol. For example you really need to keep your git repos on the WSL fs, rather than in the Windows tree. The upside is that they thought about it and Visual Code integration is seamless.

Luckily most of my is pretty segregated - either its all on Linux or all on Windows.

One killer feature is WSL2 can run windows binaries.

I've made an "open" alias to emulate the mac behavour, eg. you run "open fred.docx" inside WSL2 and it will open the document in word.

I've also made a "pbcopy" clone, and have a bunch of other scripts that simplify mundane tasks.

It's the same thing but : cheaper, faster, easier.

> Windows is better as a Desktop

Warning opinion ahead... W98SE was better as a desktop back then. Nowadays, I prefer Linux any day. Reinstalling a Windows machine is a total nightmare, reinstalling a Linux takes me 1.5h at most.

When it comes to things like HDR, floating point scaling, hardware accelerated browser, DRM (netflix etc) it seems linux on the Desktop still "not there" At least what I gather from user reports on /r/linux

Of course if you don't use any of these features it's not that big of a deal.

I'm happy with my windows 7 that got upgraded to win 8 that got upgraded to win 10 + wsl1. ~5 year old installation by now.

I don't have an HDR display, but the rest of the items you list are 'there' at least on Wayland.

Except DRM where Amazon, Netflix et al. just decide that Linux doesn't get HD streaming, but Windows does (one might claim that Linux is maybe better to circumvent DRM since it's the hacker OS, but there is no material difference between a non-secure-boot non-TPM Windows and Linux here; both allow the user to run kernel code and permit effectively full control of the machine).

Just a few days I have been told:

> To achieve an effective resolution of 1920x1080 you're looking at a scaling factor of 1.5, and it just doesn't work well. It also increases battery drain on a system that already has battery life issues.

But I don't know the details. hardware acceleration in browser I think is somewhat new? Last half year or so, is it now by default? You only have stereo and max HD on linux with most streaming providers. No surroundsound.

> W98SE was better as a desktop back then.

Other than nonexistent USB drive support, it is a great desktop back then. I have many fond memories tinkering with Win98SE. I upgraded to WinME (stupid stupid move...) then went back to 98SE, then upgraded to WinXP pre-SP1 and hated it. So I went back to 98SE and remained in 98SE until WinXP SP2 came out. I felt 98SE was the last version (Perhaps 2000, again I only used it in high school) that caters on the interactivity between the people and the computer.

Now... it is like "screw you, we decide what is BEST for you and you have to suck it up". I do miss using 98SE and looking back of how it is a security nightmare because I deleted like drwatson.exe and few system files to get more space back for my Diablo II. You can imagine my reaction when it failed to boot up Windows next time. Ahh so much memories.

I just meant the desktop. It was consistent, free from spy-ware, not too bloated, responsive.

I have the opposite experience, but maybe it's just because you and me know the quirks of each system.

I like working with linux but linux as a desktop is still a nightmare outside of dev environment bubble.

Linux isn't a desktop, it's a kernel.

Windows is a package that also contains a desktop, and a kernel (since W'95 at least), and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Think you got what my colloquial ass I meant.