Live data from Hacker News

Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

321–330 of 434 posts

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#321
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that doesn't suit my definition of native. ;) Too bad, that would really be a game changer for me. Running bash itself though... yeah, ok, whatever. But maybe I'm not the target audience.

> "No, that doesn't suit my definition of native. ;)" Why is that? Because the containers are running in Hyper-V? From a user standpoint I doubt you'd notice any difference, especially once Hyper-V is supported in Windows 10: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsserver/2016/04/04...

I would imagine resource consumption being much worse on Hyper-V because such containers are basicaly VMs. Am I mistaken?

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#322

I have to say after the initial excitement, I'm a bit disappointed about how this is implemented. Apparently, there is no or little interaction between the Linux world and the Windows world in this system. I don't see the benefits over running a classical Linux-as-a-process like coLinux, or something like Cygwin or MinGW. The option to run unmodified executables is nice if you have closed-source linux binaries, but t…

> And I thought it would be possible to throw a dlopen in a Linux program and load Windows DLLs. No. Execution mode incompatible - see e.g. https://github.com/wishstudio/flinux/wiki/Difference-between... for details. What would really interest me: how was fork() implemented by MS here? The same method as http://stackoverflow.com/questions/985281/what-is-the-closes... or have different interfaces been created?

Since NT kernel supports fork, I guess that wasn't a problem, since the bash mode doesn't use WIN32 API (which is lacking the fork() function).

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#323

As I understand it, Microsoft has copied the Linux kernel system call interfaces and provided their own underlying implementation. Given that Microsoft supported Oracle's view that the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java programming interfaces were covered by copyright law, then surely they would also agree that the same holds true for the Linux kernel system call interfaces. I don't like the APIs-are-c…

One could argue that the Linux syscall interface is closer to an ABI than an API, since you don't directly code against it. Don't know what implications that has in this context, though. One legal thing that I'm also wondering about is the "Linux" trademark. I thought the Linux Foundation kept close tabs on how you were allowed to use the trademark, and one requirement was that the Linux kernel was actually involved?

> One legal thing that I'm also wondering about is the "Linux" trademark.

This probably explains why they never talk about Linux (at least I never saw it), but always about Ubuntu. I guess they have an agreement with Canonical.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#324
post #281

As I understand it, Microsoft has copied the Linux kernel system call interfaces and provided their own underlying implementation. Given that Microsoft supported Oracle's view that the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java programming interfaces were covered by copyright law, then surely they would also agree that the same holds true for the Linux kernel system call interfaces. I don't like the APIs-are-c…

Do you really think a multi billion dollar company like Microsoft wouldn't have their legal team all over this? Do you not think they would have researched this out. Discussed their implementation, and made sure everything they were doing was going to meet the GPL copyright standards?

You make it sound as if the "law" is easy. Everyone can have their own interpretation of the law, and often those interpretations are complete opposite. That's why we have two sides in a court of law.

Microsoft's lawyers likely decided that the move is "worth the risk". But they wouldn't be able to be 100% sure that it's either legal or illegal anyway. You can only be 100% sure after someone challenges you in Court, and then judges decide a certain way.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#325
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think a multi billion dollar company like Microsoft wouldn't have their legal team all over this? Do you not think they would have researched this out. Discussed their implementation, and made sure everything they were doing was going to meet the GPL copyright standards?

This same "multi billion dollar" company had an AI bot tweeting Nazi propaganda a week ago. They spectacularly failed in their xbox one release, having to completely retool and regroup. Their Windows Phone efforts remain a complete disaster and are now doomed to failure. The whole "they're a big company...don't you think they've thought of this!" argument (and its many "do you really think they'll lose?" variations)…

Well if we really believe the bot was AI, then it wasn't Microsoft's bot. It was was it's own "artificial intelligence".

But the rest of those have nothing to do with their legal team. They wouldn't implement a copy of another OS into this OS without making sure it was legal to do so.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#326
post #281

As I understand it, Microsoft has copied the Linux kernel system call interfaces and provided their own underlying implementation. Given that Microsoft supported Oracle's view that the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java programming interfaces were covered by copyright law, then surely they would also agree that the same holds true for the Linux kernel system call interfaces. I don't like the APIs-are-c…

Do you really think a multi billion dollar company like Microsoft wouldn't have their legal team all over this? Do you not think they would have researched this out. Discussed their implementation, and made sure everything they were doing was going to meet the GPL copyright standards?

Microsoft as a company culture is like the opposite from the "move fast and break things" (as it probably should when you're a platform company)

but legally speaking, they seem to have adopted that culture.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#327
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plain text files are an incredibly powerful way of "storing ASTs", the advantages are far too numerous to list. The primary one being complete and total interoparability with all other tools that accept plain text files. I will bet you £100 that we won't be programming by speech and gestures in even 25 years time as the disadvantages are enormous.

> I will bet you £100 that we won't be programming by speech and gestures in even 25 years time as the disadvantages are enormous. Unless AI advances considerably. For years I've imagined myself talking to the small specialized AI living in my computer, giving it instructions that it would translate to code...

Natural language is a terrible way to specify software.

Writing software is about telling a blazingly fast, literal, moron what to do. The ambiguity inherent in natural language is not a good way of telling such a thing what to do.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#328
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "list joe (subtle gesture) mary (subtle gesture) dave end How will you go about drawing "joe" and "mary"? Is it faster than typing? Note that you can't always select stuff from dropdowns - you often have to create new symbols and values. > Everyone in the room I'm in now can naturally talk at 200 words per minute. How fast they can track back and correct a mistake made three words before? Or take the last sentence…

>> You could easily build an AST with gestures and speech > How will you go about drawing "joe" and "mary"? I'll just say it, it's easier. As I said at the top of the thread, gestures and speech. > How fast they can track back and correct a mistake made three words before? I gave an example of opening an existing structure and modifying it in the comment you're replying to. > Or take the last sentence and make it a s…

> I gave an example of opening an existing structure and modifying it in the comment you're replying to.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "subtle gesture" there.

Anyway, in the original comment you said:

> Data structures are shapes. A shape is better drawn than described in text.

I'll grant you that speaking + gestures may not be a bad way of entering and manipulating small data structures and preforming simple operations. But until we have a technology that can recognize speech and gestures reliably and accurately (and tablets with OSes that don't lag and hang up for half a second at random), physical keyboards will still be much faster and much less annoying.

But I still doubt you could extend that to more complex editing and navigating tasks. Take a brief look at the things you can do in Paredit:

http://pub.gajendra.net/src/paredit-refcard.pdf

Consider the last three or four subsections and ask yourself, how to solve them with touch, gestures and speech. Are you going to drag some kind of symbolic representation of "tree node" to move a bunch elements into a sublevel? How about splitting a node into two at a particular point? Joining them together? Repeating this (or a more complex transformation) action 20 times in a row (that's what a decent editor has keyboard macros for)? Searching in code for a particular substring?

Sure, it can be done with the modes of input you're advocating, but I doubt it can be done in an efficient way that would still resemble normal speech and interaction. There are stories on the Internet of blind programmers using Emacs who can achieve comparable speed to sighted ones. This usually involves using voice pitch and style as a modifier, and also using short sounds for more complex operations. Like "ugh" for "function" and "barph" for "public class", etc. So yeah, with enough trickery it can be done. But the question is - unless you can't use the screen and the keyboard, why do it?

> Like in a DOM? Easily: grab it and move it, just like you do it in DevTools today, except with your hands rather than a mouse.

DevTools are a bad example for this task. Using keyboard is much faster and more convenient than mouse. C.f. Paredit.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#329
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "list joe (subtle gesture) mary (subtle gesture) dave end How will you go about drawing "joe" and "mary"? Is it faster than typing? Note that you can't always select stuff from dropdowns - you often have to create new symbols and values. > Everyone in the room I'm in now can naturally talk at 200 words per minute. How fast they can track back and correct a mistake made three words before? Or take the last sentence…

>> You could easily build an AST with gestures and speech > How will you go about drawing "joe" and "mary"? I'll just say it, it's easier. As I said at the top of the thread, gestures and speech. > How fast they can track back and correct a mistake made three words before? I gave an example of opening an existing structure and modifying it in the comment you're replying to. > Or take the last sentence and make it a s…

That's great if you just want the strings joe and mary. What happens if you want a list of People?

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#330
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416884 for some things that might be a problem.

That's an really important point.

Well... nuts. On the other hand... I'm positive that my company's IT policies were -- like a lot of other massive manufacturing companies -- written by proxy via an even-more-massive consulting agency back when SOX happened. I can't help but I wonder if this will escape their notice. But, yeah, if Norton anti-virus heuristics get excited... Crap.
Post reply on HN