I remember NT was to have an OS/2 subsystem, probably because it started out as OS/2 3.0, with a New Technology (NT) kernel. I know there was a POSIX system, but I never saw or interacted with it and, legend says, it was only used to check a box in government contracts.
Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
11–20 of 250 posts
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#12> And the reason I can imagine this is because macOS gives you this model (albeit cheating because macOS is essentially Unix). What is the cheat there? That MacOS X is a single operating system, where both, command line tools the blog author knows and GUI tools, life in the same world, with da process model and same devices on a single kernel, unlike WSL? How is that cheating? Is my Linux desktop cheating as well?
cheating as in they have much less work to do to implement unix-like linux on the hood because it was already there, and Microsoft actually has to build a port.
Where is MacOS implementing Linux? At it's core it is a Unix system (not sure whether they have any recent certification, but doesn't matter) tltonlarge parts following POSIX with a fancy GUI.
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#13> And the reason I can imagine this is because macOS gives you this model (albeit cheating because macOS is essentially Unix). What is the cheat there? That MacOS X is a single operating system, where both, command line tools the blog author knows and GUI tools, life in the same world, with da process model and same devices on a single kernel, unlike WSL? How is that cheating? Is my Linux desktop cheating as well?
cheating as in they have much less work to do to implement unix-like linux on the hood because it was already there, and Microsoft actually has to build a port.
Which was not always the case, up until Mac OS 9 there was no Unix. They delivered with Mac OS X. That’s not cheating, it’s pointing out that Microsoft failed in this regard.
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#14If you want a Linux-like environment on Windows that can see and be seen from the Windows side, there is Cygwin. It's not as deeply integrated as WSL1, nor has binary compatibility (you'll have to get binaries compiled for it or compile them yourself) but last time I checked (Windows 7, IIRC) it did the job.
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#15Not sure I agree with this write up. Microsoft can and is already plumbing various host bits into the guest virtual machine (e.g. GPU). There's nothing preventing them from exposing processes, per the author's wishes, but it really comes down to -- do folks really need/want that? If so, file an issue in the WSL repository and get the ball rolling!
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#16I remember NT was to have an OS/2 subsystem, probably because it started out as OS/2 3.0, with a New Technology (NT) kernel. I know there was a POSIX system, but I never saw or interacted with it and, legend says, it was only used to check a box in government contracts.
The OS/2 subsystem existed and shipped up to Windows 2000.
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#17[deleted]
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
cheating as in they have much less work to do to implement unix-like linux on the hood because it was already there, and Microsoft actually has to build a port.
Which was not always the case, up until Mac OS 9 there was no Unix. They delivered with Mac OS X. That’s not cheating, it’s pointing out that Microsoft failed in this regard.
MacOS X is not a new version of MacOS 9 - it's renamed OPENSTEP with a MacOS X theme and some parts replaced. It's also very different from most Unixes in that it has a Mach microkernel with a BSD coat of paint. It almost has more in common with NT than it has with Linux.
Before that, MacOS had (AFAIK - never seen it myself) the MPW environment that had a Unix-like shell.
And A/UX.
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
cheating as in they have much less work to do to implement unix-like linux on the hood because it was already there, and Microsoft actually has to build a port.
Where is MacOS implementing Linux? At it's core it is a Unix system (not sure whether they have any recent certification, but doesn't matter) tltonlarge parts following POSIX with a fancy GUI.
I wonder if it would be possible to resurrect MkLinux on top of the MacOS Mach kernel.
Would doubtlessly be fun.
Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux: The lost potential
#20I remember NT was to have an OS/2 subsystem, probably because it started out as OS/2 3.0, with a New Technology (NT) kernel. I know there was a POSIX system, but I never saw or interacted with it and, legend says, it was only used to check a box in government contracts.
The OS/2 subsystem existed and shipped up to Windows 2000.
Really?! I tried to run a couple OS/2 binaries back then without success.
Did you have to do anything special?