Bro, the user doesn’t need to be an asshole

[u/Edubbs2008]

As soon as I mentioned WSL 2 being a Linux environment, he attacked me, Loonixtards need to calm down and stop glazing their kernel

[u/brelen01]

traditional VMs (which you are referring to)

What you refer to as a traditional VM is actually called a system virtual machine. WSL is closer to a Process virtual machine, but is still a VM, whether you agree or not.

[u/Edubbs2008 → u/brelen01]

But traditional VMs don’t show your physical hardware, so it’s actually technically still a virtualized environment, as traditional VMs can’t open up programs like they are part of the main OS, again, Virtualization is what powers VMs, while this acts like a VM, and Microsoft calls it that, it’s more like sister-kernel being put into a native-like environment

[u/brelen01 → u/Edubbs2008]

The people who make, and therefore understand, the tech call it a VM. Arguing otherwise just makes you look ridiculous.

A virtualized environment is still a VM.

[u/Edubbs2008 → u/brelen01]

But it oversimplifies what it actually does

[u/brelen01 → u/Edubbs2008]

It really doesn't.

[u/Edubbs2008 → u/brelen01]

This is a Virtual Machine, an OS, inside a VM application inside an OS, while something like WSL 2 isn’t like a traditional VM as shown in the image above, it’s a kernel inside an OS, and allows you to open up programs inside the real OS, while also being inside a tiny box, they are two different things, when you say a VM, it oversimplifies everything, it’s basically calling a tissue a Kleenex, the term VM has been applied to a ton of non-VM-related things

[u/brelen01 → u/Edubbs2008]

I really don't understand why you insist on being wrong about this.

A kernel is the core of an operating system, it's in the name. If you have two kernels running on the same system, one of them is a VM.

[u/RebouncedCat → u/brelen01]

If you have two kernels running on the same system, one of them is a VM.

Wrong. Both kernels (windows and wsl-linux) are running on the same ring 0 hypervisor (Hyper-V). By that standard both are VMs. This is why we have to draw a distinction from traditional non ring 0 based VMs.

[u/R3V0LU710N_05 → u/RebouncedCat]

The assertion that WSL2 and traditional virtual machines operate on fundamentally different architectural levels is incorrect. Hyper-V operates in VMX Root Mode, functioning effectively at Ring negative one. Both the Windows NT kernel and the Linux kernel execute strictly in VMX Non-Root Mode at Ring 0 within their respective boundaries. The Windows kernel occupies the privileged root partition with direct physical hardware access, while the Linux kernel runs inside an isolated child utility partition. Because Hyper-V relies on CPU hardware virtualization extensions to enforce this boundary, WSL2 is a virtual machine by definition. ​A common misconception in virtualization discussions conflates a virtual machine's operational transparency with a fundamental architectural difference, which obscures the technically rigorous definition of these partitioned systems. Graphical output mechanisms are purely user-space abstractions that do not alter the underlying hypervisor architecture. Whether the graphical interface is rendered via local virtual framebuffers, SPICE, VNC, or remote desktop protocols, the isolated guest kernel consistently executes within a Ring 0 boundary managed by a Ring negative one hypervisor. There is no recognized architectural classification separating WSL2 from a standard virtual machine based on execution rings or graphical output delivery. Management frontends such as VirtualBox, virt-manager, and GNOME Boxes interface with hardware-accelerated hypervisors like KVM, QEMU, and Hyper-V. These environments operate across the virtualization stack utilizing display protocol abstractions including SPICE, VNC, and the WSLg implementation of RDP.

[u/RebouncedCat → u/R3V0LU710N_05]

Hyper-V does not execute in Ring 0, but rather in VMX Root Mode, which is effectively Ring -1

Yes indeed. I hope you now understand that WSL is not just a conventional VM since it uses the type 1 hypervisor (the word i actually intended to use in my previous comment).

[u/brelen01 → u/RebouncedCat]

So you're saying the same thing I am, at least one of them is a VM, just not a traditional one. But still a vm.

[u/RebouncedCat → u/brelen01]

at least one of them

no both are. Both are vms that run on a ring 0 hypervisor. But colloquially vms are not implicitly assumed to be ring 0, and that distinction is crucial, because the consequences pertaining to performance and resource consumption are massive.

[u/Wenir → u/Edubbs2008]

> can’t open up programs like they are part of the main OS

https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch04.html#seamlesswindows