Why would you use WSL instead of straight VM for example (assuming you are somehow banned from running Linux proper directly on your hardware)? And I'm a bit confused about the benefit of launching PowerPoint from WSL, when you have the Windows host itself sitting there.
I'm uncertain if you're asking "Why use WSL vs VM" or "Why use WSL/Linux VM if you can run Linux directly".
For the first: Unified filesystem, memory, processor resources. You don't need to have the extra overhead of running a VM.
For the second: The reason to run Windows is the same as the reason to run MacOS - so you can run apps for those platforms. If you don't need to do that, then obviously there's little/no point in doing so.
Well, for running Windows applications on Linux we have Wine already. I'm not saying WSL isn't an interesting thing, but if I'd had such choice, I would have run Linux natively first, in VM as second best option, and WSL as last resort.
