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

561–570 of 933 posts

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#561

Post by techdragon »

julian_1 wrote: post #335
mcpherrinm wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately X11 is "network transparent" and there's X11 servers for windows. It shouldn't actually be that hard to make this work (though the perf will probably be pretty bad in a naive implementation). At very worst you could SSH to localhost and X11-forward to the same host -- but you can optimize that.

Wayland might be a cleaner api layer to integrate into the windows display subsystems.

Or we could use X11 right now with one of the several existing X11 display servers that work on Windows :-)

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#562

Post by kbenson »

chillaxtian wrote: post #504
kbenson wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What about the lack of windows software on those platforms? It goes both ways. i miss absolutely zero windows software.

Eh, games are the only thing I missed when I was exclusively Linux. Even that's changing though.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#563

Post by [deleted] »

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #437
omarforgotpwd wrote: post #139

Imagine going back in time to the 90s and telling people that in 2016 Microsoft would bend over backwards to make sure Windows could run Linux ELF binaries natively in the kernel by converting syscalls. You'd probably be laughed at.

They'd laugh, because NT already had posix system calls http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/1...

[deleted]

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#564

Post by coldtea »

cyphar wrote: post #549
Someone wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

1. A few minutes of testing will tell you how to do it for every shell script you will ever write. If you can't spare a few minutes, Google it. 2. GNU Parallel is actually my choice for this, because xargs has a few known issues. Parallel gets the most right, and I used it a lot in my research to run scripts on lots of data. 3. Hell no. Distributions do this job perfectly fine, and you should be able to read the man…

>1. A few minutes of testing will tell you how to do it for every shell script you will ever write. If you can't spare a few minutes, Google it.

No, it actually won't. There are so many tricks and caveats with shell expansions, wildcard handling etc, that regularly old unix hats I know get it wrong (and I've started on Sun OS, probably before half of HN was born).

This is like saying "pointers are nothing, you can learn them in a day" ignoring the obvious fact that the interplay with pointers in a large app is something entirely different than merely understanding indirection, and than even the best kernel/driver/crypto/etc programmers still get pointer related bugs after decades of writing C.

>3. Hell no. Distributions do this job perfectly fine, and you should be able to read the man pages without having read permissions for the binary (since in UNIX you can have 111 as permissions on a binary).

Actually, no, they don't do it at all. One can have 3-4 different versions of a userland program, and never know (unless they explicitly check versions) for which the man page is.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#565

Post by bluejekyll »

taude wrote: post #366
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…

Many of us, I'd say a majority of Devs work in an environment where you don't really have a choice, other than Windows...

Every environment I've walked into like this (unless it's Windows app development) this was only because no one tried. I joined a large web shop that was Windows Dev, but Linux deploy.

Never made sense to me. It was driven by IT because of control issues. I introduced Linux (this was 10 years ago) and then slowly ever Dev switched to develop on Linux because it was a better development experience. Unix is by hackers for hackers. IT was forced to incorporate these systems, which wasn't hard.

Now with this change I can see why people might switch back, definitely makes it easier to have Windows IT shop, but still be able to target Linux. Personally, Docker has already started resolving this issue for me, but I can see it helping Windows devotees. MS lost my trust back in 1996, and I honestly don't know what they could do to regain it, but this isn't enough for me.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#567

Post by [deleted] »

frik wrote: post #209

Is this part of a patent deal between Microsoft and Canonical? Or why would Canonical help them - that' s the only explanation that makes sense. We all know how it works out for companies sleeping in bed with a huge corporation... either the buy you, do an inside job trojan horse style, or compete against you. (Cyanogen, Nokia, Xamarin, Yahoo, Sun, RedHat, Google, Apple, etc) If they buy Canonical and/or RedHat, I wo…

[deleted]

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#569

Post by jameslk »

entitycontext wrote: post #523
sp332 wrote: post #197

So how do we get it? I have a laptop set to get "Insider" updates but I don't see the feature anywhere obvious.

According to Mike Harsh, a beta version is coming in an insider release "after the Build conference." [1] During an interview Q&A, Kevin Gallo says that it might show up in a week or two. [2] [1] https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/03/30/run-bash-o... [2] https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2016/C904

This comment should be at the top. It's nice that everyone has an opinion about this announcement, but I just wanted to try it out. Unfortunately it's not as obvious that it hasn't been released yet.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#570

Post by eggy »

ageofwant wrote: post #539
mcpherrinm wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately X11 is "network transparent" and there's X11 servers for windows. It shouldn't actually be that hard to make this work (though the perf will probably be pretty bad in a naive implementation). At very worst you could SSH to localhost and X11-forward to the same host -- but you can optimize that.

Or you could just use ubuntu... It amazes me that people will rag on linux because its "hard" and then build these elaborate Rube-Goldberg machines to avoid the most obvious solution.

I have been running dual-boot Windows/Linux forever (Minix before Linux took over ;) ). I have purchased programs - Mathematica, Ableton Live, Clip Studio Paint, etc... that I have on Windows along with VS and .NET/F# stuff. This will make my world so much easier, since I only use Linux for the occasional program I don't want to bother compiling on Windows due to dependencies and long make files. Cygwin and MSYS2 have their issues to make this more enticing to me.
Post reply on HN