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

Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 434 posts

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#341

Post by useerup »

nailer wrote: post #164
rat87 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to http://stackoverflow.com/a/868290/259130 function directory-summary($dir=".") { get-childitem $dir | % { $f = $_ ; get-childitem -r $_.FullName | measure-object -property length -sum | select @{Name="Name";Expression={$f}},Sum} } I could get a shorter non exact version if I was on windows.

For 'du': > Get-ChildItem C:\windows | Measure-Object -property length -sum Count : 28 Average : Sum : 6407920 Maximum : Minimum : Property : length For 'df': > get-WmiObject win32_logicaldisk DeviceID : C: DriveType : 3 ProviderName : FreeSpace : 21796540416 Size : 31685865472 VolumeName : DeviceID : D: DriveType : 5 ProviderName : FreeSpace : Size : VolumeName : DeviceID : Z: DriveType : 4 ProviderName : \\veertu\s…

And you just built du with a single line of PowerShell. Also, you demonstrated the full syntax. The short form would be (leveraging aliases, positional parameters and unambiguous short parameter names):

For du:

    ls C:\Windows\ | measure length -sum
For df:

    gwmi win32_logicaldisk

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#342

Post by matt_wulfeck »

venomsnake wrote: post #122
siscia wrote: post #49

I am a little scared from the distinction we are start to make between "computers" and "developers' computers" In most computer nowadays you cannot code (tables and smartphones), are computers doomed to be an expensive tool for few "nerd" ? What will be the impact on computer literacy ?

>are computers doomed to be an expensive tool for few "nerd" ? No. Because of the Glorious PC Master Race - mods, trainers, hacks, overlays etc - these all need dev and root access. Btw- game modding, cracking, save game editing etc - are the best gateway drugs towards full blown IT career.

Word. I remember using a hex editor to alter a saved game. It would be decades before I learned exactly how hex works.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#343

Post by useerup »

chx wrote: post #28
annnnd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I use Docker?

I would be shocked. As I mentioned above, I wouldn't expect wireshark to run either. From what we gathered so far, this is a syscall translation layer and > No new system calls are added for cgroups - all support for querying and modifying cgroups is via this cgroup file system. Per https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/cgroups.t...

Microsoft hasn't announced this (yet), but syscall translation seems to be really well positioned for their container push. I fully expect that MS will announce Linux containers running on Windows Server using WSL. Already the perf is there.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#344

Post by bluejekyll »

1_player wrote: post #243
atgreen wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about libc. I'm talking about the kernel system call interfaces. They are defined by the kernel, not libc.

IANAL but the kernel _code_ is GPL. Nothing forbids you to implement from scratch some functionality with a different license. As long as you don't copy and paste GPL code. A system call is a function entry point. The code executed when those functions are called is GPL licensed, and Microsoft wrote that from scratch.

So what defines a derived work? If you implement from scratch, but in order to implement must look at the existing implementation in order to get it correct, then it's possible (probable?) that the new implementation is directly derived from the original implementation.

It's not like Linux has a published license free spec. Unless they reverse engineered the system calls (possible but omg I think that would have been hard), then I'd be willing to bet that this could be easily considered derived work from the GPL.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#345

Post by dboreham »

dlandis wrote: post #333
annnnd wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They mention "Linux" all the time. The feature is called Windows Subsystem for Linux (Beta).

It is perfectly legal to mention someone else's trademark. Else we would have text in books like "He walked over to the bar and ordered a popular sugared caffeinated beverage made by a company headquartered in Atlanta". You just can't say something that might confuse the reader into thinking that you own the trademark.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#346

Post by zbjornson »

tdicola wrote: post #21
sz4kerto wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My potential use case: run the IDE on the host (Windows UI is fast, font rendering is great), but use git, etc. from the Linux command line (to get file permissions, etc. right).

Install git (the real git from https://git-scm.com/ , not a fancy GUI) and use the git bash shell today. It runs msys and has a full set of Linux utilities like ls, etc.

The powershell extensions in Git Shell (not git bash) are also fantastic and less clunky (doesn't feel like mingw). Comes bundled with github for Windows.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#347

Post by dboreham »

I wonder who came up with the "Bash on Windows" tagline. That was a really smart idea. I think most of us would have run with "Emulated Linux syscall layer from user mode processes on Windows". Promoting bash specifically seems to me like engineering marketing genius -- less technically knowledgeable people are more likely to be familiar with bash, while the more knowledgeable are going to think "wait...what? how do they do that? that would mean...", which works better than simply saying what they have done.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#348

Post by CurtHagenlocher »

mtgx wrote: post #324
jjuel wrote: 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?

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,…

Lawyers never decide that something is "worth the risk"; that's not their job. In this context, the job of the lawyer is to assess the legal risk, and it's a business executive's job to decide whether a risk is worthwhile.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#349

Post by dboreham »

atgreen wrote: post #225

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…

Perhaps it is an evil plot to get that ruling overturned by presenting an obviously beneficial counterexample?
Post reply on HN