Ironic username. As a die hard, WSL aint bad though. I just can't deal with an OS that automatically quarantines bittorrent clients, decides to override local administrator policies via windows updates and pops up ad notifications.

+1

I use WSL for work because we have no linux client options. It's generally fine, but both forced windows update reboots as well as seemingly random wsl reboots (assuming because of some component update?) can really bite you if you're in the middle of something.

All my personal machines run linux. At work my choices are Mac or Windows. If Macs were still x86_64 I might choose that and run a VM, but I have no interest in learning the pitfalls of cross arch emulation or dealing with arm64 linux distro for a development machine.

I never notice the difference between arm64 and x86 environments, since I'm flipping between them all the time just because the arm boxes are so much cheaper. The only time it matters to me is building containers, and then it's just a matter of passing `--platform=linux/amd64,linux/arm64` to `docker buildx`.

If you're building really arch-specific stuff, then I could see not wanting to go there, but Rosetta support is pretty much seamless. It's just slower.

I personally use Windows + WSL2 and for work use macOS. I prefer Windows + WSL2 by a longshot. It just "works". macOS never "just works" for me. Colima is fine but requires a static memory allocation for the VM, it doesn't have the level of polish that WSL2 has. Brew is awful compared to apt (which you get with WSL2 because it's just Linux).

And then there's the windowing system of macOS that feels like it's straight from the 90s. "System tray" icons that accumulate over time and are distracting, awful window management with clunky animations, the near useless dock (clicking on VS Code shows all my 6 IDEs, why?). Windows and Linux are much modern in that regard.

The Mac hardware is amazing, well worth its price, but the OS feels like it's from a decade ago.