WSL has come a long way — but for many long-term Linux users, the improvements still don’t tip the scales back to Windows.
The How‑To Geek piece argues a familiar, increasingly common position: WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux) has matured into a powerful, usable environment, but improvements alone aren’t enough to coax a committed Linux user back to daily‑driver Windows. The author concedes WSL’s technical evolution — from a compatibility shim to a real Linux kernel running inside a lightweight VM — yet describes why their own workflow, ethics and UX preferences keep them firmly on a native Linux desktop. Key complaints include an aversion to Microsoft's Copilot and AI push, rampant product marketing and nagging inside Windows, and an experience that, to them, feels more like a billboard than an operating system.
That position is worth unpacking. WSL is objectively better than it was five years ago. But so are Linux desktops and compatibility layers. The real question for anyone deciding between “Linux full‑time” and “Windows with WSL” is not whether WSL can run Linux programs — it can — but whether the overall platform, policies and ecosystem on Windows align with that user’s priorities: control, privacy, predictability and minimal vendor friction.
This article summarizes the original argument, verifies the technical claims, and then offers a critical analysis for readers weighing their own migration choices. It closes with practical advice: a checklist to decide which path suits you, and mitigation steps if you want the best of both worlds.
From that architectural change flowed several practical advances:
But technology alone doesn’t determine whether a platform feels like “home.” For many users, the decision to run Linux full‑time is driven as much by values and experience design as by raw compatibility:
But the decision to “go back to Windows” is rarely just technical. It is about how an OS fits a user’s values, the friction it introduces through marketing and AI integration, and whether vendor behaviors align with the user’s expectations for privacy and control. For people who prize a clean, open, and vendor‑neutral environment — and who can run the apps they need on Linux — WSL is a great tool, not a reason to abandon native Linux.
The How‑To Geek author’s stance — that WSL is excellent but not enough to make them return to Windows — is defensible and increasingly common. The future will narrow these tradeoffs further: gaming compatibility continues to improve, WSL features will keep growing, and Microsoft’s product choices may evolve. Until then, the safe advice remains: choose the platform that best matches the work you do and the principles you won’t compromise.
Source: How-To Geek WSL is good, but it's still not enough for me to go back to Windows
Overview
The How‑To Geek piece argues a familiar, increasingly common position: WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux) has matured into a powerful, usable environment, but improvements alone aren’t enough to coax a committed Linux user back to daily‑driver Windows. The author concedes WSL’s technical evolution — from a compatibility shim to a real Linux kernel running inside a lightweight VM — yet describes why their own workflow, ethics and UX preferences keep them firmly on a native Linux desktop. Key complaints include an aversion to Microsoft's Copilot and AI push, rampant product marketing and nagging inside Windows, and an experience that, to them, feels more like a billboard than an operating system.That position is worth unpacking. WSL is objectively better than it was five years ago. But so are Linux desktops and compatibility layers. The real question for anyone deciding between “Linux full‑time” and “Windows with WSL” is not whether WSL can run Linux programs — it can — but whether the overall platform, policies and ecosystem on Windows align with that user’s priorities: control, privacy, predictability and minimal vendor friction.
This article summarizes the original argument, verifies the technical claims, and then offers a critical analysis for readers weighing their own migration choices. It closes with practical advice: a checklist to decide which path suits you, and mitigation steps if you want the best of both worlds.
Background: how we got here
WSL’s technical evolution
When WSL first appeared, it was notable for allowing Bash and many user‑space Linux tools to run on Windows without a full VM. Over time, Microsoft rebuilt the subsystem. The arrival of WSL 2 marked a fundamental shift: Microsoft ships a tuned Linux kernel that runs inside a lightweight virtual machine, giving far better system‑call compatibility and file‑system behavior than the original translation‑layer approach.From that architectural change flowed several practical advances:
- Full system‑call compatibility, which made previously unsupported Linux apps (including Docker and many developer tools) run reliably.
- WSLg, which brings GUI Linux apps to Windows seamlessly, supporting both X11 and Wayland apps so developers can run graphical Linux programs alongside Windows ones.
- GPU passthrough and compute support (CUDA/DirectML) that let some machine‑learning and GPU‑accelerated workflows run inside WSL.
- Improvements to I/O performance, networking and integration that reduced earlier friction.
Linux on the rise — and compatibility layers aren’t standing still
At the same time, Linux desktops and the Linux application ecosystem have matured. Compatibility tooling such as Wine, its front ends like PlayOnLinux, and Valve’s Proton for gaming have closed gaps that used to force enthusiasts back to native Windows. Where once many productivity and creative apps were Windows‑only, the combination of native Linux alternatives, improved cross‑platform support from major vendors, and compatibility layers now lets a large number of users run everything they need in Linux.What the How‑To Geek piece gets right
1) WSL is much better than it used to be
The article’s core technical statement — that WSL evolved from an incomplete compatibility layer to something running a real Linux kernel within a VM — is accurate. That change underpins most of the usability gains people praise: better compatibility, GUI app support and GPU acceleration for some workloads.2) For many developers, WSL is “good enough”
If your workflow centers on web development, command‑line tooling, and containerized workloads, WSL gives you a Linux shell integrated with Windows workflows and file systems. For many engineers — especially those who must use a handful of Windows‑only tools for work — WSL offers a practical, low‑friction compromise: keep Windows as the host OS and run the bulk of Linux tooling in a tightly integrated environment.3) Linux can be a complete daily driver for many people now
The complaint that “my apps all exist on Linux” is a genuine and growing reality. Many mainstream apps and services offer Linux clients or satisfactory web alternatives. For media, development, productivity and general browsing tasks, modern Linux desktops deliver a competitive, often superior experience — if the vendor’s ecosystem and the user’s favourite apps are supported.What the How‑To Geek piece glosses over (and what to watch out for)
The piece is persuasive, but an evaluation requires nuance. Below I address both the strengths and the practical limits of staying on Linux versus adopting Windows+WSL.Strengths of the Linux choice
- Full control over the kernel and system services. Running Linux natively means you control kernel versions, boot loaders and low‑level drivers. That matters to power users, privacy‑focused people and anyone who wants complete transparency.
- No vendor‑level pushy UI elements. Native Linux desktops do not embed system‑level marketing or a single vendor’s ecosystem in the same way mainstream Windows distributions do.
- Mature native tooling and strong community support. Package ecosystems, rolling releases (for those who choose them), and the broad FOSS ecosystem mean many users can replace proprietary tools without losing functionality.
- Gaming is improving on Linux. Valve’s Proton and related work have greatly expanded playable Windows titles on Linux. While anticheat/driver obstacles remain for some AAA titles, the percentage of games that run has increased dramatically.
Limitations and risks of Linux as daily driver
- Edge cases still exist. Highly specialized Windows‑only software — enterprise niche apps, certain academic or corporate tools, and some device drivers — still require Windows. If your job demands any of those, dual‑boot or a Windows VM may be unavoidable.
- Consumer hardware and peripherals. Printer drivers, specialized controllers, and some cutting‑edge hardware sometimes get better immediate support on Windows. For many mainstream devices it’s fine, but edge cases persist.
- Anti‑cheat and closed kernel drivers in gaming. Kernel‑level anticheat can block Linux compatibility for some massively popular games; those titles can lock users into Windows for a pure gaming experience.
- Expectation management for newcomers. Linux can do everything for many users, but it still requires occasional troubleshooting, especially on unusual hardware or with mixed proprietary ecosystems.
The Copilot and “ad billboard” complaints: cultural and product concerns
The How‑To Geek author is explicit: even if Windows solved every technical gap, they’d still be put off by Microsoft’s Copilot and what they see as pervasive marketing inside Windows.Why Copilot polarizes
- Copilot and similar LLM assistants can genuinely help with brainstorming, drafting and quick lookups. They’re useful for low‑friction tasks.
- But embedding an assistant at the OS level — pushed into the taskbar, Start menu, and default workflows — changes the user experience. For people who value a minimal, distraction‑free environment, this can be an intrusively prescriptive design choice.
- There are also legitimate questions about corporate AI marketing: watchdogs have challenged some of Microsoft’s Copilot claims and urged clearer disclosures about capabilities and limitations. That fuels distrust for users worried about hype, privacy, or vendor lock‑in.
Advertising and “promotion” inside Windows
- Windows has increasingly surfaced prompts nudging users toward Microsoft services — bundled OneDrive storage upsells, Microsoft 365 promotions, and curated suggestions in widgets and the Start menu. To some users this feels like an erosion of the OS as a neutral platform.
- Aggressive product promotion combined with the presence of an LLM assistant can reinforce the perception that Windows is designed to funnel users into a vendor ecosystem — a dealbreaker for those who prize platform neutrality.
Technical reality-check: what WSL can and cannot do today
Here’s a practical breakdown of the capabilities WSL brings — and the realistic limits you should consider before assuming WSL fully replaces Linux on bare metal.What WSL does well
- Shell, CLI tools and developer workflows. Native apt/yum/pacman packages, container tooling (Docker via WSL integration), language runtimes and editors work well.
- Running GUI Linux apps on Windows (WSLg). You can run X11/Wayland GUI apps and have them display like native windows.
- GPU compute for ML and acceleration. With vendor drivers and WSL GPU support, many CUDA and DirectML workflows run inside WSL for development and small‑scale training tasks.
- Seamless file access and cross‑tool integration. You can mount Windows files and call Windows executables from Linux processes (and vice versa), making hybrid workflows fluid.
What WSL still struggles with
- Low‑level hardware control and custom kernels. If you need to build or test custom kernels or use obscure kernel modules, WSL is not a replacement for bare‑metal Linux.
- Certain types of networking and kernel‑level features. Some advanced networking setups (mirrored networking, special VPNs, or kernel hooks) can be fragile or behave differently under WSL’s VM architecture.
- Guaranteed parity for every GUI or device. Peripheral behavior, driver installation and boot‑time services are still native Windows concerns — WSL has no control over them.
- The ultimate “Linux desktop” feel. Themes, compositor tweaks, and the full stack from bootloader to desktop environment are only possible on native Linux. WSL can approximate, but not replace, the native experience.
If you’re on the fence: a practical decision checklist
Before you switch OS for good (or commit to Windows+WSL), run through this checklist. Answer honestly: if you can say “yes” to most of items in either column, that path is likely a better fit.- Do I need kernel‑level control, custom kernels, or kernel modules? (Yes → Native Linux)
- Do I need a small set of Windows‑only, mission‑critical apps that cannot run under Wine/Proton or virtualized Windows? (Yes → Windows primary)
- Is my primary workflow terminal, cloud‑native, or container‑based (editors, compilers, CI)? (Yes → WSL or Linux either way)
- Do I prioritize privacy and minimal vendor marketing inside the OS? (Yes → Native Linux)
- Do I need top‑tier support for every new AAA game with kernel‑level anticheat? (Yes → Windows)
- Do I prefer one OS for all tasks and want the “lowest friction” single environment? (Yes → weigh compatibility and vendor tradeoffs)
Migration options that give you the best of both worlds
If you’re curious about both sides, here are pragmatic setups people use to combine Linux freedom with Windows compatibility.- Dual‑boot: pure native performance for both OSes. Best if you need absolute parity for demanding workloads (gaming or kernel hacking).
- Windows primary with WSL: keep Windows for device drivers and a few Windows‑only apps, run all Linux development inside WSL. Good if you accept Windows’ ecosystem but want a genuine Linux environment.
- Linux primary with a Windows VM: run Windows as a VM (or via GPU‑enabled passthrough) for the occasional Windows GUI app or game. This is increasingly viable for power users who want full Linux control.
- Mixed hardware: use multiple machines (work laptop on Windows, personal dev box on Linux) to separate concerns and reduce cross‑platform friction.
Practical tips: if you use Windows and want less “billboard” behavior
The How‑To Geek author’s resentment about Copilot and in‑OS marketing is shared by many. If you want to keep Windows but limit the collateral annoyances, practical mitigations exist:- Use local accounts where possible and opt out of telemetry/suggestions in Settings. Some enterprise‑grade Group Policy or registry edits can reduce telemetry and promotional prompts.
- Disable or remove preinstalled widgets and “recommended” tiles, and reduce notifications from Microsoft services.
- Replace the Windows default browser and lock down your chosen default (some installs will prompt you to re‑enable Edge with “recommended settings” — be intentional about choices).
- If Copilot or AI features are intrusive, uninstall or hide the Copilot UI where possible and configure privacy and data‑sharing settings to limit what’s sent to cloud services.
Final analysis: why WSL is remarkable — but not a universal panacea
WSL is one of the clearest signals that Microsoft has fundamentally changed how it views developer workflows and open source. Shipping a Linux kernel inside Windows, offering GUI support, and enabling GPU compute inside a Windows host are engineering feats that materially reduce the friction of cross‑platform development.But technology alone doesn’t determine whether a platform feels like “home.” For many users, the decision to run Linux full‑time is driven as much by values and experience design as by raw compatibility:
- If you value total ownership of your stack, predictability, and an environment free of vendor marketing, a native Linux desktop still bests Windows.
- If you need the convenience of a single Windows host and some Linux functionality without switching machines, WSL is an excellent compromise.
- If you’re sensitive to corporate data collection, AI marketing and ecosystem lock‑in, the presence of Copilot and in‑OS promotions may be the decisive factor — not technical parity.
Recommendations for readers
- If your highest priority is control, privacy and the pure Linux experience: stay on or migrate to a native Linux desktop. Invest time into learning distribution‑specific quirks and the compatibility tooling (Wine, PlayOnLinux, Proton) for the occasional Windows app.
- If you must use Windows occasionally but prefer Linux workflows: adopt Windows as a host with WSL for day‑to‑day development, but be prepared to configure privacy and UX settings to reduce marketing intrusions.
- If gaming is central and you want the broadest possible compatibility: evaluate the current state of Proton and anti‑cheat support for your favorite titles. For many games, Linux is now viable; for others, Windows remains necessary.
- For cautious migration: try a dual‑boot or keep a lightweight Windows VM. Test all mission‑critical tasks for at least a couple of weeks before committing.
Conclusion
WSL is an impressive engineering achievement that narrows the gap between the Windows and Linux experiences. It has transformed how many developers and engineers work, and it mitigates many historical reasons to dual‑boot or carry multiple machines.But the decision to “go back to Windows” is rarely just technical. It is about how an OS fits a user’s values, the friction it introduces through marketing and AI integration, and whether vendor behaviors align with the user’s expectations for privacy and control. For people who prize a clean, open, and vendor‑neutral environment — and who can run the apps they need on Linux — WSL is a great tool, not a reason to abandon native Linux.
The How‑To Geek author’s stance — that WSL is excellent but not enough to make them return to Windows — is defensible and increasingly common. The future will narrow these tradeoffs further: gaming compatibility continues to improve, WSL features will keep growing, and Microsoft’s product choices may evolve. Until then, the safe advice remains: choose the platform that best matches the work you do and the principles you won’t compromise.
Source: How-To Geek WSL is good, but it's still not enough for me to go back to Windows
