Me too. Particularly after having to do Docker things a few years ago, destroying my productivity due to file system speed.
However, for those of us that went Linux many years ago, and like our free open source, in 2025, is it better to go back to the dark side, to run Windows and have things like a LAMP stack and terminals run with WSL?
I don't play games or run Adobe products, I use Google Docs and I don't need lots of different Linux kernels. Hence, is it better to run Linux in Windows now? Genuinely asking.
As someone who occasionally does use WSL, I definitely think it's not better no. But I'm still biased, because I know a lot more about using linux than I do about using windows, and WSL is still windows.
> is it better to run Linux in Windows now? Genuinely asking.
definitely is. Servicing takes ~ 1 minute per month to click on "yeah, let's apply those updates and reboot". Peace of mind with no worrying on external hardware won't work or monitor will have issues or laptop won't sleep or during the call battery will discharge faster due to lack of hardware acceleration or noise cancellation not working or ...
While I mostly agree with this sentiment, sidestepping the power management and sleep issues as well as better driver support and touchpad handling on some laptops makes it quite a bit better.
I've been installing Linux almost universally on "Windows computers" [sic] for the past two decades or more, per your characterization. Sometimes great, sometimes meh. Your point? I am simply illustrating there's a value for WSL over bare metal in some cases, not playing the whose fault it is game.
Sic? You don't understand the argument at all then.
Buy computers that were designed for and ship with Linux, and with support you can call to get help. Modern hardware is far too complex to handle multiple OSes without a major effort. Assuming they even want to support anything but Windows, which most don't.
First, that's not the discussion at all. The question is does WSL have valid use cases and benefits over bare metal Linux. The answer is absolutely yes. For whatever reason you have the computer in front of you and you have the choice between the two modalities (many times you don't buy it, employer does, etc.)
Second, if everyone had your attitude, seeing PCs as "Windows computers" and stayed in their lanes in the 90s and 2000s, you would not have the option of three and a half supported "Linux computers" you are alluding to today. Viva hackers who see beyond the label.
WSL is better than no option, sure. It's not as good as Linux on Linux hardware.
The hackers sure. Reverse engineering takes a lot of skill and my hat's off to them.
Almost everyone here, though, are not in either camp. Most have the means and ability to buy a Linux computer if they so choose. But they don't and then complain when Linux fails to run well on a system that never has had a team of dedicated system integration work on it.
