I haven't used all variants of VMs but my experience with VMs is very different from WSL2. For example:
* Smooth set up. Don't have to install some large commercial 800MB MSI like VMware workstation, download some Linux image, go through partitioning of file system etc.
* Well integrated. I can open up a terminal and it acts as any other window in my system (meaning I don't get the window in a window effect as you get with a new VM).
* My file system is mapped automatically. No need to set up Shared Folders or whatever manually.
* Better startup perf. WSL starts in a second on my computer. Never had the same experience with full VMs. Even if I use something like alpine just starting VMware or VirtualBox takes a lot longer than starting WSL.
Saying it is like any other VM seems just incorrect. Saying it didn't work out seems even more misguided.
> Saying it didn't work out seems even more misguided.
That may be, but the rest of your comment seems to be unrelated to the matter at hand since you merely listed some advantages of WSL2 instead of addressing the disadvantages that are causing people trouble.
I have been using multipass very successfully the past few weeks. It's a full fat VM and has an experience very similar to that of WSL. https://multipass.run/
* Smooth set up. Don't have to install some large commercial 800MB MSI like VMware workstation, download some Linux image, go through partitioning of file system etc.
* Well integrated. I can open up a terminal and it acts as any other window in my system (meaning I don't get the window in a window effect as you get with a new VM).
* My file system is mapped automatically. No need to set up Shared Folders or whatever manually.
* Better startup perf. WSL starts in a second on my computer. Never had the same experience with full VMs. Even if I use something like alpine just starting VMware or VirtualBox takes a lot longer than starting WSL.
Saying it is like any other VM seems just incorrect. Saying it didn't work out seems even more misguided.