Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I think they are going after developers who use OS X because it is UNIXy. Smart move given how en vogue Apple laptops have become for developers these days.
It kinda makes me regret my MBP purchase last fall. I really wanted a Surface Pro but I couldn't deal with developing on Windows.
Ubuntu on Windows
371–380 of 933 posts
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#372Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect they implemented a subsystem for Linux at the syscall level - i.e. they implemented the Linux kernel's interface at the ABI level. No headers would need to intermingle with open source; compile on Linux, run on Windows.
From the screenshots, it seems there is a full kernel in there - e.g. you have /proc/cpuinfo, and it identifies as Linux 3.4.0. If they just implemented all Linux syscalls on top of NT, that would replace a Linux kernel. There would be no Linux kernel running on top. But in that case they would also need to emulate stuff like /proc. (This is the "reverse Wine" scenario.) So I personally think it is either: - There is…
They don't run the linux kernel at all. That /proc/cpuinfo is a part of a limited subset from what procfs usually offers. They enter their linux compatible "subsystem" via a bash binary, which could probably be any linux elf binary, since they run them unmodified. So, it looks like they actually implemented most of the syscalls with some of them emulating necessary parts of linux environment, like procfs.
[1] https://sec.ch9.ms/ch9/5db6/8ee786b7-9fc5-45bf-94d0-16ea9176...
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#374Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#375Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#376It's time that people stopped using the term 'Windows' for this operating system. The Free Software Foundation created the bulk of the userspace, under terms that allow anyone to share, modify and fork the programs, and then Microsoft came along with the one last missing piece of the puzzle - the kernel, and completed the full operating system, which, to be frank, users find completely unusable and worthless without…
You jest, but I agree. I might accept a GNU/Windows machine as a working computer, but I would be a lot more weary of accepting just a Windows machine.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I'm (mostly) a Windows user, and the one reason I'm constantly thinking of moving to OSX as my primary OS is the amount of command-line tooling that is available in the system. Everything new is always there first. I've started feeling that I was holding back by staying on Windows, even if using Mingw daily. This might be the thing that saves Windows as a dev machine for me. I'm a heavy cmd/powershell user b…
> I'm constantly thinking of moving to OSX as my primary OS is the amount of command-line tooling that is available in the system. Everything new is always there first. Having had OS X, Windows, and various Linux distributions as my primary operating systems I would consider having an Arch Linux VM kicking around if you want all the packages in the world, maintained fairly well.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#378A few random thoughts: - Wow, hell is really freezing over! - The hardest part of running bash and other posix things under windows is filesystem access. Windows uses drive letters and backslashes, unix has a root filesystem with forward slashes. It seems they are taking the same route as cygwin by "mounting" windows drives in /mnt/c (or /cygdrive/c). - If you just wanted bash and some posix tools, the harder but nic…
> Windows uses drive letters and backslashes, unix has a root filesystem with forward slashes. Windows also has mountpoints. When I use a Windows system, I pretend that C: is the only drive, and mount external volumes under the root, Unix-style. I then install Cygwin in the C:\ root, creating the illusion of a fairly Unix-ish filesystem layout.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I prefer to develop today on OS X...your post is nothing but FUD. > What about lack of all the Linux/OS X GUI software? Windows prolly has more GUI applications than both those OSes combined. That's not necessarily a good thing but it's not bad either. It just means there is a Win substitute for everything. > What about lack of all the UNIX OS features? Same answer as above. > What about all those billions and…
"Windows prolly has more GUI applications than both those OSes combined." Oh...right all those cool FREE_VIDEO_CONVERTER_YOUTUBE_MP4_DOWNLOAD_FAST_FREE_GREEN_CARD.EXE applications...right.... Now days all the developer/engineer GUI apps are made OS X first, Linux second and maybe Windows. "I download a lot of crap on my home Win computer and haven't had a virus once in the past 6 or 7 years. There are likely more And…
There's nothing lucky about being prudent.