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

Ubuntu on Windows

blog.dustinkirkland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 933 posts

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#321

Post by riotdash »

talawahdotnet wrote: post #242
crudbug wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think M$ is targeting more developers with *NIX background on the desktop side rather than Linux apps on server. So a bash support with uniform CLI is the end-game.

Yea, I think they are going after developers who use OS X because it is UNIXy. Smart move given how en vogue Apple laptops have become for developers these days.

Let's be honest here. Does this change make some developers actually even consider to change their OS X/Linux Desktops to Windows? Yeah it is really cool thing that we can finally use windows cmd like the terminal on unix systems however:

- What about lack of all the Linux/OS X GUI software?

- What about lack of all the UNIX OS features?

- What about all those billions and billions of Windows malware, viruses, adware etc.

- What about all the spying and restrictions that Microsoft has integrated into the Windows? (e.g. cannot block Microsoft spy server in the hosts-file, forced updates etc.)

- What about the fact that OS X and Linux have always been at least decent from developers point of view but Windows has always had problems and then things like Vista and Win8 happen.

- What about the advertisements served to you in the login screen?

- What about all the future shit MS will throw at you?

- Other stuff can't remember now

If and IF this will actually work out well, I would say this finally makes Windows usable for software development however I don't see any reason why anyone would change from UNIX based system to Windows unless they plan to make even bigger changes in the future...( like rewriting whole Windows to be UNIX based for example. :) )

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#322

Post by EdSharkey »

sabelo wrote: post #264
takeda wrote: post #233

Surprised I don't see anyone else mentioning this. This looks to me like typical Microsoft strategy that they utilized a lot 25 years ago. 1. when not leader in given market, make your product fully compatible with competitor 2. start gaining momentum (e.g. why should I use Linux, when on Windows I can run both Linux and Windows applications) 3. once becoming leader break up compatibility 4. rinse and repeat Happened…

Embrace, extend and extinguish. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

I'm not ruling EEE out, but this move feels more like "staunch the bleeding" to capture more developers and retain the ones they have. I'd love to read a leaked Powerpoint or memo that explains the long-term strategy here.

I think this is a great move by Microsoft to be able to EXEC a competitor's binary files natively. But, I think it risks being an admission that Win32/64 syscalls and Windows file system semantics are a crufty boat anchor holding developers back. To admit that risks inviting more developers to bail on Windows.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#323

Post by baq »

NateDad wrote: post #259
tkinom wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can windows 10 apt-get install/run most/all the x/gtk base apps apt-get build from source those apps. ? If so, I will consider switch.

No. No GUI applications (currently, and no announced future support... and I wouldn't bank on them doing it).

i recently discovered mobaxterm's awesome automatic x server and x forwarding. suddenly i find myself gvim'ing on my (non-prod) servers. i imagine it'll be similarly easy but better.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#324

Post by uxp »

mastax wrote: post #232
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #149

Will rendering Unicode characters still be a complete disaster? Will I need to care about which "code page" or whatever is being used (not that that ever seemed to help)?

I think making unicode work properly is a prerequisite to run native linux applications, so I'm hopeful. Personally I think they should change the terminal to unicode by default and make the 1% of pos-ported-from-windows-95 apps `chcp` before they work.

I agree, but as someone who has to "maintain" one of those pos-ported-from-windows-95 apps, the actual source code is long gone so it's nearly impossible to make any meaningful changes to the application. I'd venture a guess that most of these things that would break are in a similar boat.

That said, F-it. If updating to Server 2016 breaks it for good, we might actually prioritize a rewrite within the next two decades.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#326

Post by AimHere »

It's time that people stopped using the term 'Windows' for this operating system. The Free Software Foundation created the bulk of the userspace, under terms that allow anyone to share, modify and fork the programs, and then Microsoft came along with the one last missing piece of the puzzle - the kernel, and completed the full operating system, which, to be frank, users find completely unusable and worthless without the free software provided by GNU.

The kernel is an important part of the system, sure, but only one among many important parts. We therefore think that, to give full credit to the authors, the whole system should be termed GNU/Windows.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#327

Post by mattbillenstein »

AimHere wrote: post #326

It's time that people stopped using the term 'Windows' for this operating system. The Free Software Foundation created the bulk of the userspace, under terms that allow anyone to share, modify and fork the programs, and then Microsoft came along with the one last missing piece of the puzzle - the kernel, and completed the full operating system, which, to be frank, users find completely unusable and worthless without…

LOL!

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#328

Post by fauigerzigerk »

13of40 wrote: post #244
sbarre wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first point describes me exactly (and many other developers I know). I grew up a Windows user, and switched to OS X because of the unix-like command line environment that more closely matched the servers I was working with in my job environments. I would most likely switch back to Windows as my primary/only machine (because I also like to play video games sometimes) if I had the same kind of unix-like command li…

> I grew up a Windows user, and switched to OS X because of the unix-like command line environment that more closely matched the servers I was working with in my job environments. Out of curiosity, why would you not just go with a Linux desktop for that?

Same history here. I did actually use Linux for quite a while but ultimately gave up because Linux just isn't good at the one job only an operating system can do, which is to make the hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner.

I just got tired of fixing sound issues, trying to make a scanner work or investigating CPU states to fix heat and battery draining issues on yet another laptop. Ultimately, I think, all of this is a result of the unresolved issue of who should write and test device drivers.

It doesn't help that I disagree profoundly with the prevailing package management philosophy of Linux distributions, but that is a comparably superficial problem that can be worked around.

Re: Ubuntu on Windows

#329

Post by rahoulb »

riotdash wrote: post #321
talawahdotnet wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I think they are going after developers who use OS X because it is UNIXy. Smart move given how en vogue Apple laptops have become for developers these days.

Let's be honest here. Does this change make some developers actually even consider to change their OS X/Linux Desktops to Windows? Yeah it is really cool thing that we can finally use windows cmd like the terminal on unix systems however: - What about lack of all the Linux/OS X GUI software? - What about lack of all the UNIX OS features? - What about all those billions and billions of Windows malware, viruses, adware…

For a second machine (maybe a cheap laptop) then yes, I would consider it.

As a side note, Windows NT had a POSIX layer as one of its three main APIs (Along with Win32 and OS/2), so in theory, at least, it should have been easy to port true UNIX apps to it. I have no idea what state the POSIX layer is in now; probably in a similar state to the OS/2 layer.

Post reply on HN