Advantages of Linux app installation on Windows

What is the benefit of installing the Linux version of an app like VLC on Windows (with WSL)?
Does it cause any performance issues (make the app's performance better or slower)?

atinfo said:

What is the benefit of installing the Linux version of an app like VLC on Windows (with WSL)?
Does it cause any performance issues (make the app's performance better or slower)?

Click to expand...

No benefits, quite the opposite as nothing beats running anything natively. -in the architecture in which it was written in-
If you run Linux VLC in Windows, it has to pass through several layers of 'translation' in order to run.
You therefore degrade its performance.
That degradation might hardly be noticeable in powerful s.ystems but in any case, the scenario you offer can only go one way.

OAT said:

No benefits, quite the opposite as nothing beats running anything natively.

Click to expand...

Like the virtualization technology? I have heard before (I think it was at one of the Microsoft events) that WSL works very smoothly, and users can't see any difference in the app's performance, and it's close to the native app's performance.
Actually, I want to try installing VLC (Linux version) on Windows because it (Windows version) doesn't support Dark theme on Windows (natively and with no Skin). The developers have been developing version 4 since three years ago, and it is currently 70% of the road to be released (there are a ton of issues on their Git's issue page).

atinfo said:

it's close to the native app's performance.

Click to expand...

That says it all. Vague and unsubstantiated.
Virtualization can only at best match, in some cases only perceivably, the original system.

I should have already guessed it! Like Apple presentations!
Thanks .

There probably isn't a great reason in most cases to install a linux version of an app where there is a windows version of the same app.

WSL is awesome. Works great for those of us who have to work in a Windows world and want to use our native linux tools.

Rather than using WSL I was fortunate to be given a Desktop with an Intel i7-4770 CPU for parts. Since it won't properly run Win11 I put Linux Mint on it, works quite well on my 4-unit KVM. Other 3 computers are Win11, Win10 and Win7. I connected a 2-port Drive Dock to the Linux and use GPARTED to manipulate partitions or clean drives for reuse instead of using the GPARTED Bootable LiveCD.

OAT said:

That says it all. Vague and unsubstantiated.
Virtualization can only at best match, in some cases only perceivably, the original system.

Click to expand...

Virtualisation these days can run at almost 95% or even higher % of Native speed. Especially if you can "pass thru" Native hardware.

@OAT Please understand what a HYPERVISOR is -- It's clear you don't understand the basic concept and probably are used to thinking about VMWARE Workstation / Player or ORACLE's VBOX which run as application programs under an existing OS in a single user's address space.

A modern Hypervisor system such as LINUX's KVM/QEMU actually is loaded as a "Separate" OS so doesn't need the overhead of the HOST OS and as a conseqence you can pass thru a load of the hardware so you can get an incredibly efficient GUEST OS. So typically on LINUX once you connect to a GUEST OS the computer switches to the HYPERVISOR which has minimal OS overhead. It's similar in Windows with HYPER-V but you really need to run this on a Windows server version as Windows is inherently a single user system (Non Server versions).

When you switch to the GUEST OS on KVM/QEMU the original OS is "swapped out to the background" - so you do need decent fast disks and plenty of RAM - while the HYPERVISOR is swapped in as the primary OS and runs the GUEST. This can be incredibly efficient - far more so than Type 2 HYPERVISORS such as those used in VMWARE WKS or ORACLE's VBOX.

Again @OAT -- I'm not having a Go at you but there's so much confusion and obfuscation about VM's -- that's why I'm not surprised at the general lack of knowledge or typical misconceptions. With type 1 Hypervisors users should be able to connect to a GUEST even if they don't have an account on the Host -- Windows non server editions though tend to have a problem in that if the user logs off then any Windows VM isn't accessible. On KVM/QEMU nobody needs to be logged on to the HOST -- meanwhile the VM is 100% accessible for authorized remote users.

WSL is fine for using Linux tools on Windows when you don't need a fill blown VM -- for example using rsync for data backup is a good case in point. You can even use a few Linux "Windowed apps" without needing a full blown Linux desktop GUI such as GNOME / MINT / LXDE / KDE etc.


These days though with modern hardware and loads of storage I'd tend to go for a full blown VM - but as the Brits usually say "Horses for Courses".

@Berton

I've mentioned the advantages of GPARTED for years -- don't forget it also has a built in terminal CLI as well as a small web browser, and a file explorer

Cheers
jimbo

Berton said:

Rather than using WSL I was fortunate to be given a Desktop with an Intel i7-4770 CPU for parts. Since it won't properly run Win11 I put Linux Mint on it, works quite well on my 4-unit KVM. Other 3 computers are Win11, Win10 and Win7. I connected a 2-port Drive Dock to the Linux and use GPARTED to manipulate partitions or clean drives for reuse instead of using the GPARTED Bootable LiveCD.

Click to expand...

If you are trying to learn linux or you want to work completely from a linux environment...i would always recommend a secondary machine (if you have the option), or a VM running the distro you want to play with. You are going to get the full experience here and any guidance available on the web for the particular distro that you are using will be 100% applicable in this environment.

WSL really serves a different purpose from "i want to run/learn/use a Linux machine". WSL is designed primarily for developers who need to run Windows on their primary machine, but also have a desire to use tools like bash, sed, awk, grep, ruby, python, etc alongside their Windows applications. With integration in the Windows terminal, you can have 1 tab running Powershell, and 1 tab in your WSL environment for all of the native Linux tooling you may benefit from. You have easy (pre-built) in integration between the file systems in Windows and Linux. For me, I can open WSL, navigate to /mnt/c and from there I can use a tool like grep to quickly search a log file, find all the source IP addresses, limit it to unique entries and then spit out a list of which systems accessed the system from that log file. That's the type of thing I do on a daily basis at work, and without having to add any additional software onto my windows box, I have access to all of these built in linux tools that I understand and know how to use.

If you have a need to run these native linux tools, and you want to run them using fewer resources (CPU, memory, storage), WSL can provide that benefit over running a full virtual machine. If on the other hand, you want to setup a LAMP stack (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP), or play games in Linux, or study for a certification exam, or eventually learn a new OS to get away from Windows or MacOS entirely, a WSL implemented experience of Linux is not going to be the right tool for the job.

Some good points but I'm already getting what I want with Linux.

Berton said:

Some good points but I'm already getting what I want with Linux.

Click to expand...

Correct.

I was just posting as a comment that sometimes it's finding the right tool for the right job. This doesn't have to be 1 or the other. I run native linux hardware, I run Linux in VM's and I run Linux as WSL. All have unique resasons making them the right choices for what I am doing.