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

How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 274 posts

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#21

Post by asveikau »

l3m0ndr0p wrote: post #16
serge2k wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Curious why you claim this? What's outdated about the NT Kernel?

Here are some, or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel... 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, like you can in Unix/Linux. You have to set a setting somewhere to enable this, but there's a security risk. 3. Standard functional/usable non-gui terminal application like Unix/Linux ssh. PowerShell doesn't come close. 4. Ability to SUDO or su Admin lik…

> 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access.

NT has a root directory like Unix does. Drive letters are symbolic links inside a directory called \DosDevices.

Granted, this is not user-visible but an implementation detail. The needs of Win32 applications dictate a lot of user-visible behavior.

> 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders,

NT supports symbolic links. Open cmd and type "mklink".

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#22

Post by jdmichal »

l3m0ndr0p wrote: post #16
serge2k wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Curious why you claim this? What's outdated about the NT Kernel?

Here are some, or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel... 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, like you can in Unix/Linux. You have to set a setting somewhere to enable this, but there's a security risk. 3. Standard functional/usable non-gui terminal application like Unix/Linux ssh. PowerShell doesn't come close. 4. Ability to SUDO or su Admin lik…

1. The use of a multi-root hierarchy vs. a single root hierarchy is pretty arbitrary. Drive letters in turn are just an arbitrary way to define the multi-root hierarchy.

2. `mklink` [0] has existed since Windows Vista for NTFS file system. No settings toggling required.

3. What is your argument against PowerShell? In what ways does it fall short? I have been pretty successful with using it for various tasks.

4. This is about the only legit claim. Windows always requires full credentials to execute as another user. Windows does provide `runas.exe`, but you must provide the target user's full credentials.

[0] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753194%28v=ws....

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#23

Post by [deleted] »

l3m0ndr0p wrote: post #16
serge2k wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Curious why you claim this? What's outdated about the NT Kernel?

Here are some, or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel... 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, like you can in Unix/Linux. You have to set a setting somewhere to enable this, but there's a security risk. 3. Standard functional/usable non-gui terminal application like Unix/Linux ssh. PowerShell doesn't come close. 4. Ability to SUDO or su Admin lik…

[deleted]

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#24

Post by sz4kerto »

l3m0ndr0p wrote: post #16
serge2k wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Curious why you claim this? What's outdated about the NT Kernel?

Here are some, or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel... 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, like you can in Unix/Linux. You have to set a setting somewhere to enable this, but there's a security risk. 3. Standard functional/usable non-gui terminal application like Unix/Linux ssh. PowerShell doesn't come close. 4. Ability to SUDO or su Admin lik…

None of these are kernel-related.

You can create hard and soft links. PowerShell is great, just different. UAC is not sudo, but works very well. It's a different OS.

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#25

Post by detaro »

l3m0ndr0p wrote: post #16
serge2k wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Curious why you claim this? What's outdated about the NT Kernel?

Here are some, or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel... 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access. 2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, like you can in Unix/Linux. You have to set a setting somewhere to enable this, but there's a security risk. 3. Standard functional/usable non-gui terminal application like Unix/Linux ssh. PowerShell doesn't come close. 4. Ability to SUDO or su Admin lik…

2. Filesystem feature, supported by NTFS for quite a while in differen styles. It has a security policy because a lot of userland software doesn't know about them. I use them all the time and they work, even if you move things like /Users/.

3. Userland issue. You can compile bash and an ssh server for Windows if you want. PowerShell is quite different, yes.

4. exists, both in GUI and commandline.

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#26

Post by jjtheblunt »

l3m0ndr0p wrote: post #9

Pretty neat stuff. I think that MS should just create their own Linux Distribution & port all MS products. Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has. Why run a Linux Application/binary on a windows server OS? When you can just run it on Linux OS and get better performance & stability.

What makes you believe it's outdated?

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#27

Post by Maarten88 »

I have installed the current fast ring build and have tried installing several packages on Windows. Some do install and work (compilers, build environment, node, redis server), but packages that use more advanced socket options (such as Ethereum) or that configure a deamon (most databases), still end with an error. Compatibility is improving with every new build, and you can ditch/reset the whole Linux environment on Windows with a single command, which is nice for testing.

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#28

Post by geofft »

Animats wrote: post #2

It's too bad that x86 hardware doesn't do virtualization as well as IBM hardware. You can't stack VMs. That's exactly what's needed here - a non-kernel VM that runs above NT but below the application.

I thought that a) the conclusion of VMware's "Comparison of techniques" paper [1] was that x86 and possibly everything is Popek-and-Goldberg-virtualizable [2] via binary translation, and b) the last several years of Intel and AMD chips all have hardware virtualization support, including nested virtualization, that made their architectures Popek-and-Goldberg-virtualizable in the obvious way?

[1] https://www.vmware.com/pdf/asplos235_adams.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popek_and_Goldberg_virtualizat...

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#29

Post by _khhm »

Maarten88 wrote: post #27

I have installed the current fast ring build and have tried installing several packages on Windows. Some do install and work (compilers, build environment, node, redis server), but packages that use more advanced socket options (such as Ethereum) or that configure a deamon (most databases), still end with an error. Compatibility is improving with every new build, and you can ditch/reset the whole Linux environment on…

They've said the initial intent is for developers to use it, not for running servers / etc (which is why they only target Windows 10 client and not Windows Server OSs).

Re: How the Windows Subsystem for Linux Redirects Syscalls

#30

Post by geofft »

dragonbonheur wrote: post #12

.

"As Brother Francis readily admitted, his mastery of pre-Deluge English was far from masterful yet. The way nouns could sometimes modify other nouns in that tongue had always been one of his weak points. In Latin, as in most simple dialects of the region, a construction like servus puer meant about the same thing as puer servus, and even in English slave boy meant boy slave. But there the similarity ended. He had finally learned that house cat did not mean cat house, and that a dative of purpose or possession, as in mihi amicus, was somehow conveyed by dog food or sentry box even without inflection. But what of a triple appositive like fallout survival shelter? Brother Francis shook his head."
Post reply on HN