I'm confused what has this list:
apt, ssh, rsync, find, grep, awk, sed, sort, xargs, md5sum, gpg, curl, wget, apache, mysql, python, perl, ruby, php, gcc, tar, vim, emacs, diff, patch...
to do with Ubuntu?
Ubuntu on Windows
31–40 of 933 posts
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#32> Windows 10 users > Can open the Windows Start menu > And type "bash" [enter] > Which opens a cmd.exe console Right... Bash is a shell, but your interaction with it is controlled by a terminal program. Unless there are some real changes to cmd.exe t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ . You can compile a native bash and other utils now yourself, it's not that hard. EDIT: It's more like a Linuxul…
You seem to completely miss the point of what they did. It is not a simple Bash recompilation for Windows. It is a way to run Linux (Ubuntu) binaries on Windows.
Well I, for one, think he has a point. Part of what makes the shell so useful on Linux is, say, highlight-to-select. When the CMD.EXE doesn't understand line breaks in copied text, it's substantially crippled. You need a proper terminal to take advantage of a proper shell. They go hand-in-hand.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#33Scott Hanselman has a good write-up here:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUs...
Google Cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http:/...
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#34I was excited until I reached the Windows Store part.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#35"Linux geeks can think of it sort of the inverse of "wine" -- Ubuntu binaries running natively in Windows. Microsoft calls it their "Windows Subsystem for Linux"." I find it amazing that you can have such a functional Ubuntu environment by translating system calls. Microsoft does have the advantage of Linux being open-source I suppose, while the Wine project had to reverse engineer DLLs. Or have you supply them on yo…
> I find it amazing that you can have such a functional Ubuntu environment by translating system calls
FreeBSD has been able to do this (with some limitations!) for years:
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#36> Windows 10 users > Can open the Windows Start menu > And type "bash" [enter] > Which opens a cmd.exe console Right... Bash is a shell, but your interaction with it is controlled by a terminal program. Unless there are some real changes to cmd.exe t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ . You can compile a native bash and other utils now yourself, it's not that hard. EDIT: It's more like a Linuxul…
You seem to completely miss the point of what they did. It is not a simple Bash recompilation for Windows. It is a way to run Linux (Ubuntu) binaries on Windows.
It doesn't sound much different than a built in VM with a some optimizations. Just more bloat for windows I suppose.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#37I wonder how buggy thus is. For example, how do symlinks work given windows doesn't have an equivalent that behaves the same.
Windows does have symlinks and hardlinks that work very similarly but are only exposed via a built in cmd command. That said no one uses them.
I used to use them (directory junction points) quite a bit back when 64GB SSDs were still expensive and I wanted to redirect a few folders without changing my folder structure.
Nowadays, the most common use I've seen is as the Windows implementation of 'npm link' for Node.js developers.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to completely miss the point of what they did. It is not a simple Bash recompilation for Windows. It is a way to run Linux (Ubuntu) binaries on Windows.
My point is that you need a terminal program (like putty or iTerm2 on OS X for example) to get all the benefits.
He says it mostly works in cmd.exe, and they're working on getting things like screen/tmux working too.
If a fully-compatible terminal emulator doesn't exist yet (I have no idea) I bet there will be one within a year.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#39"Linux geeks can think of it sort of the inverse of "wine" -- Ubuntu binaries running natively in Windows. Microsoft calls it their "Windows Subsystem for Linux"." I find it amazing that you can have such a functional Ubuntu environment by translating system calls. Microsoft does have the advantage of Linux being open-source I suppose, while the Wine project had to reverse engineer DLLs. Or have you supply them on yo…
I would rather have the opposite. I would even pay for an official "Windows on Linux". There is a handful of games I would like to play, but other than that I have no interest in windows.
Totally doable. Use KVM to virtualize Windows and (the important part) make sure your CPU and motherboard support VT-d. Then you can pass a graphics card (separate from the one you run Linux with, naturally) to the VM and get >95% of native performance. There's lots of videos of folks doing this.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#40I wonder if they implemented a copy-on-write fork syscall in NT. Otherwise it will be slower (and use a lot more memory) in some scenarios.
Edit: And cow fork only makes sense if there is memory over-commit. So to be fully featured it would need a separate memory subsystem with memory over-commit.