> The root cause is likely that WSL does not work correctly and is insufficient for reliable use and should only be used for "entertainment purposes". I have found it to be convenient and reliable for most of my day-to-day tasks that a pure Linux system would support. It can build SQLite and its docs, and run most of SQLite's TCL test suite with results identical to those on other platforms. (Tests doing full precision comparison of floating point values reliably fail, however.) > The Great Unwashed seem to commonly believe that these "entertainment quality only" systems are designed for ... As a member of the occasionally washed, I have come to believe that WSL is good for more than entertainment but that there are limitations which make it worthwhile to keep my Linux and other Unix-like boxes ready for use. > I do not think there is anything that can be done other than to advise patients "Do not do that then". Hmmmm. Applying some imagination, I can come up alternatives -- most relating to appropriately wary expectation. I admit to slight surprise when, after I encountered the apparent WSL file locking flaw whose effects are described above, my suspicion of it was so soon confirmed on a genuine Linux system. I had been led to believe that WSL Linux-like file system semantics were implemented more completely than they really are. In that respect, the fact that the Linux system calls which are functional on Linux just pretend to work on WSL puts it into the "toy" category where multi-process file access is concerned. Henceforth, I will be limiting my use of WSL to situations where processes interact only through pipes, starting each other, and non-concurrent file access. It's still a useful tool, but one to be used with care by those not fond of blaming their tools for poor results.