Ubuntu on Windows • Hacker News Board

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#221

Post by rejschaap » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

thought_alarm wrote: post #82

15+ years ago Microsoft shipped a UNIX subsystem for Windows NT/2k. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX It blew my mind at the time, but it was kind of a pain and I didn't stick with it. I don't remember why. I guess this is about same thing, only its Linux instead of some other sort of UNIX.

The article also reminded me of this. I didn't use it much because Cygwin was a little less painful.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#222

Post by bahamat » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

thought_alarm wrote: post #82

15+ years ago Microsoft shipped a UNIX subsystem for Windows NT/2k. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX It blew my mind at the time, but it was kind of a pain and I didn't stick with it. I don't remember why. I guess this is about same thing, only its Linux instead of some other sort of UNIX.

The significant difference here is that it's running unmodified Linux binaries. Compile on Linux, run in windows.

You should be able to compile functioning Linux binaries on Windows and run them on Linux as well.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#223

Post by agumonkey » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

wusybox

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#224

Post by bsharitt » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

azeirah wrote: post #101

Whew, I'll finally be able to run WINE on windows! :)

For some older games and applications, they run on Wine better than newer Windows, so that might actually be a useful.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#225

Post by dboreham » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

whatever_dude wrote: post #91

barrkel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect they implemented a subsystem for Linux at the syscall level - i.e. they implemented the Linux kernel's interface at the ABI level. No headers would need to intermingle with open source; compile on Linux, run on Windows.

I've read comments where people wrote that NT always had some kind of POSIX subsystem, and it has probably just now been completed and expanded. Can't find any substantial writings on this, but it seems likely.

It was documented in the original NT manuals in 1992 which I still have on the bookshelf in pristine condition.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#226

Post by andersonmvd » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

I wonder if Linux malware will increase, as they will be almost cross-platform now. It's very cool, but from this perspective, that would be bad news for the linux community -- to get the same or more eyeballs as Windows already has.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#227

Post by TillE » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

icefox wrote: post #162

captainmuon wrote: post #47

A few random thoughts: - Wow, hell is really freezing over! - The hardest part of running bash and other posix things under windows is filesystem access. Windows uses drive letters and backslashes, unix has a root filesystem with forward slashes. It seems they are taking the same route as cygwin by "mounting" windows drives in /mnt/c (or /cygdrive/c). - If you just wanted bash and some posix tools, the harder but nic…

Some long term thoughts: 1) Linux has won the server (web) market. Developers would like to use a Unix box to work on their server code so they typically move to OS X. This could prevent that switch because they can still use Windows to developer their Linux server software. 2) Many projects start out as Linux and stay Linux and are only ported after much time and effort to Windows. Enterprises when faced with a tool…

On a practical level, this doesn't change anything for games. Anyone writing games for Linux is already using cross-platform tech like SDL or OpenGL or Allegro, or one of the many increasingly popular high-level engines.

Well, I guess it'll be easier to port roguelikes which use ncurses.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#228

Post by bcantrill » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

This is great to see, as it's very similar to the approach that we took with LX-branded zones on SmartOS[1][2]. I commented at some length on the other thread on this on HN[3], but I have a bunch of questions about apps that we know to be thorny: Go, strace, tcpdump, systemd, etc. As we learned, this approach is entirely possible -- but there are many, many details to be nailed before you get to the point that you can run production applications on it. So while the journey across the uncanny valley of Linux is long and arduous, we know from our experience that it can be done. Very much hoping that Microsoft gets to the other side -- and that they open source it all so we can all learn from one another!

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx

[2] http://us-east.manta.joyent.com/patrick.mooney/public/talks/...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392119

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#229

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #200

gvb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Embrace is good. 2. Extend can be good if done openly and collaboratively, as opposed to closed and hidden. 3. Extinguish - Here be dragons. I'm hopeful the New Kinder Gentler Microsoft stays on steps 1. and 2. (done collaboratively).

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Microsoft has been trying to extinguish their competition for decades now; what makes you think they're going to be different this time?

[deleted]

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#230

Post by anthk » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

rejschaap wrote: post #202

anthk wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of course, I have no idea how to CLOSE emacs, so I'll close the window. ;)" What if you read the welcome screen, Mr. Scott ;) ?

"C-x C-c... what does that even mean?"

You have literally the answer in the welcome screen.