WSL VS glibc_version_header

It absolutely 100% can be true.

As an example: Windows Services for Linux 2 used a special init daemon to interact with the host OS.

That meant no systemd. That meant that the `systemctl` program wasn't there.

This baffled legions, armies, of wannabe sysadmins.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55579342/why-systemd-is-...

https://superuser.com/questions/1785697/systemd-in-wsl-on-wi...

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/9477

https://askubuntu.com/questions/1132230/unable-to-run-any-sy...

People on the whole have no idea how this stuff works, and they just copy magic incantations from StackOverflow to get stuff to happen. If that doesn't work, then this OS is broken. The end.

For these guys, WSL was broken.

Result:

MS hired Lennart Poettering.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/07/lennart_poettering_re...

He "fixed" it. Systemd now works in WSL2. All those guides for noobs now work. Everyone is happy.

In a world where tools like Flatpak and Snap are proliferating and it's driving deep divisions between Linux distros, if you think the average person struggling with Linux is going to use `ldd` to work out where the dependencies for something live, I'm afraid you are a deep guru who lives on a different plane of existence.

We now have widely-used packaging systems which simply embed an apps entire dependency tree into a package to avoid people having to work out the difference between `apt` and `rpm`. Thousands of terabytes of disk are being burned to make this stuff go away.

Yes, this is too hard. Way too hard.

Better source: https://github.com/Microsoft/WSL/issues/873#issuecomment-425...

One of the bugs where on the Docker side. As I have said, there have been several since release with a lot of impact period overlap. The latest and greatest is not resolved.

It's the issue of abysmal I/O performance in communication between the mounted WSL2 virtual hard disk and Windows mounts inside the WSL2 distro.

I found this github page and I was able to reproduce this from the answer

* Docker engine and not Docker Desktop in a VM. WSL2 works well after some configuration: https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/6655#issuecomment-11...

Seems to more of a Defender issue than a WSL one, see https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/8995

After adding exclusions for the fsnotifier-wsl process and and both variants of the WSL distro path my disk performance was improved.

Adding the idea64.exe process also helped since I was trying to run IntelliJ against projects inside WSL.

One major headache with trying to run precompiled binaries on Linux is that if they were compiled using a newer version of glibc than the target machine, they won't be able to run. Back while working on Factorio, I was trying to get around this problem with endless Docker containers, but coworker Wheybags came up with a much solution to this, which is simply to, at compile time, link to the oldest compatible version of glibc: https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header

If what you're doing works for you, great, but in case it stops working at some point (or if for some reason you need to build on a current-gen distro version), you could also consider using this:

https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header

It's a set of autogenerated headers that use symbol aliasing to allow you to build against your current version of glibc, but link to the proper older versioned symbols such that it will run on whatever oldest version of glibc you select.

There are other approaches like https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header or sysroots with older glibc, e.g. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Crossdev - you don't need your whole XP, just the the system libs to link against.

Sure, having a nice SDK where you can just specify the minimum vesion you want to support would be nice but who do you expect to develop such an SDK? GNU/glibc maintainers? They would rather you ship as source. Red Hat / SUSE / Canonical? They want you to target only their distro. Valve? They decided its easier to just provide an unchaning set of libraries since they need to support existing games that got things wrong anyway and already have a distribution platform to distribute such a base system along with the games without bundling it into every single one.

A few links gathered from a quick google search as a primer:

http://stevehanov.ca/blog/?id=97

https://www.evanjones.ca/portable-linux-binaries.html

https://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2012/07/creating-portable-...

https://rpg.hamsterrepublic.com/ohrrpgce/Portable_GNU-Linux_...

https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header

In other words: there are a lot of steps and a lot of gotchyas to doing this that you're glossing over. Linux userland libraries are generally designed with the intention that an army of third-party maintainers will integrate all of this desperately developed software together and place it in a repo. Naturally every distribution wants to do things a little differently too, and they have a habit of changing it up every couple years. When you try to step out of that mold things unsurprisingly become more difficult. Whereas Windows, Mac, Android, etc. have been designed since the beginning not to require that sort of thing and it is consequently a much, much more straightforward process.

I'm curious why, since you seem to believe the process is so straight-forward, you think it is that so few people distribute a simple binary? Why were Flatpak and AppImage invented?

> Binaries compiled against today's glibc can fail to run on a machine that hasn't been updated since last week because they rely on a new / different symbol.

Note, however, that it is a Glibc bug (modulo Drepper’s temper) if the reverse happens: Glibc symbol versioning ensures that binaries depending on an old Glibc (only) will run on a new one. So the proper way to build a maximally-compatible Linux executable would be to build a cross toolchain targeting an old Glibc and compile your code with it. Unfortunately, the build system is hell and old Glibcs doesn’t compile without backported patches, so while I did try to follow in the footsteps of a couple of people[1–4], I did not succeed.

Mass-rebuilds still happen with other ecosystems, though. GHC-compiled Haskell libraries are fine-grained and not ABI-stable across compiler versions, so my Arch box regularly gets hit with a deluge of teensy library updates, and Arch is currently undergoing a massive Python rebuild (blocking all other Python package updates) behind the scenes as well.

[1]: https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header (hack but easy and will probably work most of the time)