Live data from Hacker News

Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#131
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's the subsystem for running Linux. It's not actually Linux, and after enabling the subsystem you still have to actually get the Ubutntu image. That image is the Linux part.

We all understand how it works. Repeating that is unconstructive. It is a bad name that is bad English. It was bad when it was "Windows Services for UNIX" too as an aside.

Note that this subsystem never actually was "Windows Services for UNIX". That was another subsystem, another personality on top of the Windows NT kernel.

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#132
post #81

Recently tried to use WSL to do some pair-coding tests in an interview, with screen & tmux. The damned terminal kept making characters disappear! I actually thought my interviewer was inadvertently deleting characters, or maybe trolling me. I had to switch to using an actual Linux system. MS have a ways to go before getting this right. I daresay I'll be on OSX by the time that happens though.

Yeah they fixed that. It was very annoying.

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#133
post #49

Is anyone here using this for *Nix traditional tools? Mostly curious about Vim/Tmux, and having serve operations spit out the server into the actual Windows browser? I did read something about the creator update adding 24 color support.

VIM + TMUX works awesome for me!

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you try using WSL with the creator's update? The fixes were extensive.

You mean the update that hasn't even finished rolling out globally?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10 Click update now. This tool will let you install it without waiting inline (assuming you don't have the option from the built in windows 10 update tool)

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/windows-10-creators-update-downl... (Warning annoying video plays with sound)

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#135
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all understand how it works. Repeating that is unconstructive. It is a bad name that is bad English. It was bad when it was "Windows Services for UNIX" too as an aside.

Note that this subsystem never actually was "Windows Services for UNIX". That was another subsystem, another personality on top of the Windows NT kernel.

Per context, "it" was the name of the thing. "It" (the name) was a bad name then and is a bad name now.

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#136
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used it for a while, when Fedora 24 refused to work reliably on my 4k laptop (it worked under 23, and now works again under 25). It was OK. I mean, it's an amazing feat of engineering, but there's a ton of little (and not so little) quirks that made it painful. Sharing files across the two systems was (maybe still is?) disastrous. I've heard of total Linux system corruption, but I personally had files disappear (th…

> Sharing files across the two systems was (maybe still is?) disastrous. I don't think this has ever been true. Just don't jump through the hoops it takes to modify Linux system files from Windows - that stuff is hidden from Windows apps for good reason. If you need to access files from both, store them in a normal Windows place like "/mnt/c/...". E.g. in my WSL home directory I have symlinks to my Windows Documents,…

I didn't really "jump through hoops". I just did what I would do on Linux...I searched for the Linux files. Found the Linux files. Started working with the Linux files. Turns out, that's a bad idea. Files disappeared.

I've seen numerous reports of other folks entire Linux filesystem being corrupted beyond use. So, I'm not alone in doing this...and (at the time) the docs had a single (non-threatening) sentence about it, when I went back to see if maybe I'd missed something. It basically said something along the lines of "this doesn't work", rather than "this will destroy your files".

It's not a big deal. It was bleeding edge stuff when I started playing with it; things go wrong, and I expect things to go wrong when I'm on the bleeding edge. I like where they're going.

But, it's a thing to be aware of. I wasn't aware of it, based on the docs I read on the subject, so I mentioned it, just in case someone else might not be aware of it.

The thing is, I'm not a Windows user; things that may seem obvious to a Windows user (like, "those files aren't obviously visible for a reason and that reason is don't touch them!") are not always obvious to me.

Then again, you're not the first person to say the files are "hidden"; but I was able to find them, probably using the "find" command in the git or cygwin bash shell, or something (I dunno what else I'd use to find them), but maybe using system search. I don't remember...it wasn't a momentous occasion. I just wanted to edit some files in Atom, so I went and found the files I wanted to edit, using some tool on the system. Again, I don't know Windows. If the state of these files was somehow telling me not to touch them, I did not pick up that signal.

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#138
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a subsystem of Windows (hence Windows Subsystem). And, among all Windows Subsystems, it's the one for Linux, hence Windows Subsystem for Linux.

Yeah it's the 'for' in there that makes it wrong. It's not 'for' Linux, it's for Windows. I know what it is and I _still_ think of it backwards every time I read it.

'for' is heavily overloaded as an English preposition. You are expecting a connotation of "for [the benefit of] Linux" versus the connotation of "for [the purpose of] Linux". Another example in English might be the relative meanings of 'for' in "this gift is for you" versus "this gift is for good behavior".

Other languages use multiple words or different cases for some of these situations. English leaves it ambiguous.

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#139
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's the 'for' in there that makes it wrong. It's not 'for' Linux, it's for Windows. I know what it is and I _still_ think of it backwards every time I read it.

'for' is heavily overloaded as an English preposition. You are expecting a connotation of "for [the benefit of] Linux" versus the connotation of "for [the purpose of] Linux". Another example in English might be the relative meanings of 'for' in "this gift is for you" versus "this gift is for good behavior". Other languages use multiple words or different cases for some of these situations. English leaves it ambiguous…

The fact that there are so many of us discussing it implies that it is a failure of a name. After all, what are words for if not communicating? We can debate semantics all day, but in the end, it's obvious that many people find the phrasing to be confusing.

Re: Testing the Windows Subsystem for Linux

#140
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they do that? NT is a very good kernel design.

And, moreover, the ability to run multiple operating system "personalities" on top of it like this was part of that design pretty much from the start.

Linux had that as well until it was castrated a while ago. It was called "exec_domains".
Post reply on HN