Wow Microsoft, what's next jails with a manager called
Plumber . Zing !
Ubuntu on Windows
461–470 of 933 posts
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means I need to install Visual Studio. Right now I'm only developing on Mac OS X and Linux. On top of this, every time Microsoft updates Visual Studio, things like firebird tend to break :( I'd rather use a toolchain I know better. In fact, I'd love to use clang on Windows.
> It means I need to install Visual Studio. I mean, sure, but (unless things have changed dramatically in the many years since I was a Windows dev) you don't have to do anything more than install VS. The compilers and nmake can be used without opening the GUI. IIRC, you can feed a VS project file (or -I'm pretty sure- a solution file) to nmake and get the same result you'd get from loading the GUI and pressing build.
Definitely time for me to get off my backside and install Visual Studio then...
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, what does a Linux desktop offer that's not also natively offered in Mac and also highly polished? Every year I try a switch to Linux desktop. This year I made it as far as trying to get multiple monitors working well. I also dabbed in gaming. In the end I went back to my work=Mac game=Windows duopoly.
> Just out of curiosity, what does a Linux desktop offer that's not also natively offered in Mac and also highly polished? A GNU userland. A plethora of tiling window managers. A selection of clean terminals. Every single thing Debian's or Arch's repos offer which one must turn to brew for. And of course there's freedom too, which is nice. > Every year I try a switch to Linux desktop. This year I made it as far as tr…
Maybe HDMI is better supported that DisplayPort.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#464"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…
Windows NT was designed from the start to have modular subsystems. It was most infamously used to provide a POSIX subsystem which really only checked boxes on government acquisition forms. :-) The reason WINE went with the library emulation route is because: (a) the Windows kernel doesn't have a stable system call layer, and (b) the Win32 API is massive anyway. Windows has an easier time emulating Linux at the very l…
Also (c) Windows isn't open source so there are licensing issues with Wine shipping actual Windows DLLs. Some of them do work under Wine but the project aims to replace as many of them as possible with emulated versions.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#465I'm failing to see the difference between this, and any other VM?
Is WOW in the cpu identifiers "windows-on-windows", the shim they use for "xp mode"?
If everything's mounted under /mnt(/c..), and the screenshot shows nothing mounted there - Can this run just like a VM without the host fs mounted?
I'd be really curious to see; if linux attempts to access raw block devices in /dev/, what's actually there. in the process list in windows, are all linux processes enumerated.
For now it just looks like a linux VM with the guest fs mounted in the host, and the host fs mounted in the guest.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#466I've been waiting for MS to announce MSLinux for the last 5 years. Its hard for me to understand why they just don't roll their own distribution and port their common suits to it.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#467This is great to see, as it's very similar to the approach that we took with LX-branded zones on SmartOS[1][2]. I commented at some length on the other thread on this on HN[3], but I have a bunch of questions about apps that we know to be thorny: Go, strace, tcpdump, systemd, etc. As we learned, this approach is entirely possible -- but there are many, many details to be nailed before you get to the point that you ca…
Bryan, huge fan here! I agree and believe this is just a primer to making that happen. I'd personally like to see containers become the default for application deployment and sandboxing on all operating systems:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-should-help-me-create...
Any chance you're planning for a "desktop" version of SmartOS?
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#468It'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…
But, more recently, I have taken a liking to saying GNU+Windows.
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
conhost (the black box that typically runs cmd.exe) is a terribly shitty terminal emulator. My biggest gripe with Windows has been the lack of a decent pseudoconsome system that would allow an ecosystem of terminal emulators to developer, as one has for POSIX-ish systems.
What about ConEmu? Works well for me, I especially like the Quake-style dropdown terminal option...
Re: Ubuntu on Windows
#470Earlier 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.
>Yea, I think they are going after developers who use OS X because it is UNIXy It's a bit more than UNIXy, (the proper term is Unix-like), it literally is UNIX. It meets the UNIX 03 specifications . Also, the motivations for these move predate the rise in popularity of Apple. For years, one of the biggest complaints about Windows was the lack of a good command line interface. There was the legacy CMD.EXE, which provi…
"the reality is these tools work just fine. There's never been a reason to evolve them."
On the contrary; there have been many valid reasons to evolve them, but backward compatibility was deemed more important.
Example #1: it is possible to write a sh/csh/bash/?sh script that handles file names with spaces, slashes, quotes, question marks, etc, but one would hope that would be made a bit easier, almost half a century later.
Example #2: the hack that is xargs for handling large numbers of arguments. To write a truly robust script that handles directories with an arbitrary number of files, one should run a pipeline using find and xargs, instructing xargs to do the actual work (and you cannot even use find and xargs with their default settings; you need -print0 and -0 flags to handle file names with spaces, etc)
If programs received arguments unexpanded, and the system had a library for expanding arguments, many use cases would become a lot simpler, and scripts could become more robust.
And yes, that could have been evolved. Headers of executables could easily contain a bit indicating "I'll handle wild-card expansion myself".
Example #3: man pages, IMO, should be stored in a special section inside binaries. That ensures that the man page you read is the man page for the executable you have.
Example #4: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/24182/how-to-get-the... shows that things _have_ evolved. Reading and parsing /etc/mtab isn't a reliable way to find all mount points, just as reading /etc/passwd file isn't the way to find password hashes anymore, ar has long been upgraded to support file names longer than 14 characters, and zip knows more file attributes than it used to.