Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu on Windows

blog.dustinkirkland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 933 posts

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#511

Post by mdip »

bigger_cheese wrote: post #415

If it can run GCC and EMACS I'm pretty happy. At the moment I have to use Msys. Are Ubuntu's libraries available. Could you theoretically produce a statically linked binary under Windows and then run it natively in 'real' linux

emacs and gcc - Yes - they actually demoed emacs in the keynote and gcc in the later discussion at https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2016/P488?ocid=player).

So many tools require compiling/building in Cygwin and it'll be quite convenient to just be able to do that without the extra layer.

As for Ubuntu's libraries - Aptitude is there and you can apt-get quite a bit. I believe you could -- in some cases -- static link and run in "real" linux. They were pretty insistent that this is "real Ubuntu" -- basically they've done the reverse of Wine, mapping Linux calls to Win API equivalents, so that might open up the scenario you're thinking about.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#512

Post by marshray »

rspeer wrote: post #177
80x25 wrote: post #129

"But there are some imperfections still, especially around tty's an the vt100. My beloved byobu, screen, and tmux don't quite work yet, but they're getting close!" If they actually fix these imperfections, that would be fantastic. It would address a number issues that are "unfixable" in Cygwin flavors of utilities/apps.

It sounds like this would involve tweaking conhost.exe so that it understands all the vt100 sequences, as well as UTF-8. (I hope they wouldn't assume everyone's tmux setup uses only characters from codepage 437.) If they did that, it would also fix the awfulness of Python's stdout on Windows!

I was watching the stream and I think they said Windows console host will, in fact, directly support VT-100.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#514

Post by schappim »

vernie wrote: post #354
crudbug wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think M$ is targeting more developers with *NIX background on the desktop side rather than Linux apps on server. So a bash support with uniform CLI is the end-game.

What is M$? Is it a cool way to say Microsoft?

Only on Slashdot during the '90s ;-)

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#515

Post by michaelmrose »

leo_mck wrote: post #417
riotdash wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I absolutely love the fact that windows download and install critical updates automatically for me. I would feel like a slave if I had to do it manually.

You kind of are a slave aren't you?

After all you can only auto update microsoft and store apps. Other apps will either handle updates themselves probably with an annoying UAC prompt and possibly at inconvenient times when you actually want to use the apps. Some have processes that constantly sit in the background sucking up your resources to pop up annoying prompts to update application foo during which you must watch for them changing your browser preferences and installing adware. Others you will simply have to go to their website and download an exe or msi.

Meanwhile you are missing the fact that people don't want to avoid automatic updates to fix security holes. They want to avoid updating to the next undesirable update foisted on the users before its ready and much to peoples annoyance. Example the windows 8 UI change.

Unbelievably staying on an older still supported platform until you are ready to update is a feature you have to pay money for!

Lest you misunderstand I'm not talking about clinging to windows xp till they claw it from your cold dead hands 3 years after end of life I'm talking about the future equivalent of staying with windows 7 and upgrading to windows 10 because 8 sucks.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#516

Post by Retra »

13of40 wrote: post #244
sbarre wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first point describes me exactly (and many other developers I know). I grew up a Windows user, and switched to OS X because of the unix-like command line environment that more closely matched the servers I was working with in my job environments. I would most likely switch back to Windows as my primary/only machine (because I also like to play video games sometimes) if I had the same kind of unix-like command li…

> I grew up a Windows user, and switched to OS X because of the unix-like command line environment that more closely matched the servers I was working with in my job environments. Out of curiosity, why would you not just go with a Linux desktop for that?

In the same boat: I bought an MacBookPro bacause I wanted a nice (new) machine with a decent keyboard/touchpad that didn't force me to purchase Windows. And the keyboard and touchpad on these things are phenomenal.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#517

Post by anonymfus »

jensvdh wrote: post #319
pookeh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends if the node is a Windows executable or a Linux binary.

So if I install Node as a Linux binary. Can I access it in Windows "environment" too? Does that mean I can do "apt-get install nginx" from their new "bash" terminal app? Does that then run under port 80 in Windows? Since no VM is involved. I'm still a bit confused.

>Does that then run under port 80 in Windows?

Yes, they demonstrated that localhost is the same localhost under both environments.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#518

Post by michaelmrose »

kbenson wrote: post #408
riotdash wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be honest here. Does this change make some developers actually even consider to change their OS X/Linux Desktops to Windows? Yeah it is really cool thing that we can finally use windows cmd like the terminal on unix systems however: - What about lack of all the Linux/OS X GUI software? - What about lack of all the UNIX OS features? - What about all those billions and billions of Windows malware, viruses, adware…

If I was still stuck using an OS X box, I would definitely switch. If I was using Linux, I wouldn't. I've been forced into developing using Windows for the last few years, and for my use case (SSH to remote server to develop there), it's not that bad. There are some annoyances, but from a usage perspective, Windows 10 is actually really nice. Getting native terminal and SSH[1] support actually handles a bug chunk of…

I think the lack of linux gui software was a comment on why a linux user wouldn't find this a compelling reason to switch not a comparison of the software available on each platform.

Personally I think someone interested in graphics/cad/audio production might find something compelling even if alternatives exist on linux for the above. I don't see much in the way of gui softare that anyone would care for as a developer. You can bring up visual studio if you like but I don't find it compelling.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#519

Post by jegoodwin3 »

Something similar was available years ago on sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/line/

("Line is not an emulator")

Hard to tell from the article, but I'd guess they just made an MS version of what this project does. The "mapping syscalls" sounds like implementing the ABI, similar to how Line did it.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#520

Post by anonymfus »

rspeer wrote: post #177
80x25 wrote: post #129

"But there are some imperfections still, especially around tty's an the vt100. My beloved byobu, screen, and tmux don't quite work yet, but they're getting close!" If they actually fix these imperfections, that would be fantastic. It would address a number issues that are "unfixable" in Cygwin flavors of utilities/apps.

It sounds like this would involve tweaking conhost.exe so that it understands all the vt100 sequences, as well as UTF-8. (I hope they wouldn't assume everyone's tmux setup uses only characters from codepage 437.) If they did that, it would also fix the awfulness of Python's stdout on Windows!

>as well as UTF-8.

UTF-8 was always available as codepage 65001.

Post reply on HN