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

A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

blog.jreypo.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#61

Post by pjmlp »

Cosmin_C wrote: post #57
beagle3 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Most of the programs put things all over the place. If you install software and use it for a while, you may find lots of keys in lots of places, all subtly affecting something. It’s technically the fault of the program, not the registry. But culture and ecosystems matter, and by-and-large, Config in files is usually much more concentrated. 2. Related to (1), it is very hard to just move settings from one machine t…

I agree to the above in a painful way. I don't think of myself as a power user but I have at times to clean up the registry for stuff that uninstallers missed because the updated application does not want to install. It's a complete mess of having to dig through a tip to find a broken match box so you can destroy it without setting on fire the whole thing. Meanwhile OS X or Linux don't suffer from this and working wi…

My experience with GNOME configuration repository, or files scattered around /etc, /opt/etc and /share kind of tells otherwise

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#62

Post by paavohtl »

danellis wrote: post #55
beebmam wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's unfortunately their loss in my opinion. Windows has a pretty awesome development story, far better than Apple's authoritarian hold on what software can be run and distributed for that platform. Moreover, gaming is great on Windows, and always has been, and WSL2 is extremely slick.

> Apple's authoritarian hold on what software can be run and distributed for that platform What does that mean? I've never needed Apple's permission to run any software on macOS.

Unless you go out out of your way to disable code signing using the terminal & a root account, macOS will only run code signed by an Apple issued certificate [1]. It will also phone home [2] every time a binary is ran for the first time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS)

[2] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/391399

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#64

Post by redis_mlc »

azinman2 wrote: post #43
discordance wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people at Microsoft use Macs. It’s not a big deal.

Meanwhile no one at Apple is using windows unless they have to for very specific software.

There's 2 reasons:

1) Even though Windows is a very small percentage at Apple, there's more dedicated IT staff than for all Macs (in eng.)

2) Well, Apple makes things, so use them whenever possible.

Source: worked there, talked about this.

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#65

Post by jorvi »

paavohtl wrote: post #62
danellis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's authoritarian hold on what software can be run and distributed for that platform What does that mean? I've never needed Apple's permission to run any software on macOS.

Unless you go out out of your way to disable code signing using the terminal & a root account, macOS will only run code signed by an Apple issued certificate [1]. It will also phone home [2] every time a binary is ran for the first time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS) [2] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/391399

You can literally just right click and press 'open'. Might not be obvious to the layman, but you don't need to do a whole code signing bypass song and dance.

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#66

Post by wila »

vermilingua wrote: post #35

A MS dev writing a blog on building MS’ own distro of Linux on his _Macbook_ must have Ballmer sweating bullets.

An Azure MS dev .. for running on their VMware vSphere 7 home lab.

This dev sure is not only looking at their in-house toolset. I'd say that that is a good thing.

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#67

Post by dividedbyzero »

pjmlp wrote: post #60
ThrowawayB7 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ballmer was forced out of MS 8 years ago, doubt he cares. And anyway, IIRC, it would've been Sinofsky and co. trying to squash anything that threatened the Windows division's power.

Sinofsky and co. are also to blame for Longhorn sabotage of using .NET, and most likely trying to bring Midori stuff into Windows. Now Project Reunion, sorry Windows 11, is trying to fix the path started with Windows 8.

Longhorn sabotage, Midori, Project Reunion? Could you give a bit more background for those of us like me who aren't up to date with Microsoft internal projects and politics?

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#68

Post by paavohtl »

jorvi wrote: post #65
paavohtl wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you go out out of your way to disable code signing using the terminal & a root account, macOS will only run code signed by an Apple issued certificate [1]. It will also phone home [2] every time a binary is ran for the first time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS) [2] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/391399

You can literally just right click and press 'open'. Might not be obvious to the layman, but you don't need to do a whole code signing bypass song and dance.

Big Sur has made this intentionally more tedious [1]. You apparently have to right click, click open, close the dialogue and then open it again in order to actually get the option to approve the application.

[1] https://disable-gatekeeper.github.io/

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#69

Post by bregma »

paavohtl wrote: post #62
danellis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's authoritarian hold on what software can be run and distributed for that platform What does that mean? I've never needed Apple's permission to run any software on macOS.

Unless you go out out of your way to disable code signing using the terminal & a root account, macOS will only run code signed by an Apple issued certificate [1]. It will also phone home [2] every time a binary is ran for the first time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS) [2] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/391399

I had an overnight update install itself on my sole Windows machine the other night. When it rebooted it refused to let me use my own computer until I obtained direct permission from Microsoft giving them my email address. Once I was past that lock it told me "the computer is all yours now" as if it hadn't been earlier.

Does Apple completely deny your use of your own hardware like this until you submit? Asking because I have been used to Linux as a daily driver for over 20 years and haven't used Apple since Jobs banned clones.

Re: A Look into CBL-Mariner, Microsoft’s Internal Linux Distribution

#70

Post by zaat »

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #47
jeswin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not for me. Registry was one of the worst parts of the Windows experience for me; but I understand it can be subjective. With separate files, the ability to download and replace them individually is a big win. Also, I can use terminal tools on them which is great for automation.

Editing the registry never results in corrupt unreadable intermediate states, unlike writing to config files. A workaround is "atomic save" (where one app writes to a different filename and renames it over the original). This ensures you'll never get torn reads (I think the Windows registry doesn't support transactional/atomic updates of multiple values at once), but you lose permissions and symlinks or something lik…

Of course it did /does, and depending on how badly the registry corruption was, the whole system could be rendered unbootable.
Post reply on HN