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

Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 434 posts

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#401

Post by kyberias »

drdaeman wrote: post #388
kyberias wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This is a "Windows subsystem" [1] that implements a LINUX compatible ABI for LINUX application binaries. GNU has nothing to do with it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_NT

How come? It's heavily marketed as "bash on Windows", and that "bash" is a GNU Bourne Again Shell, a part of GNU Operating System, developed under GNU Project.

This is not about Bash or any GNU software per se. Bash is just an example of a Linux executable that can be run on this system. One can apt-get install many more Ubuntu application binaries.

Please invest some time to understand what it's about technically.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#402

Post by ultramancool »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #391
ultramancool wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes Windows does provide such a thing: http://j00ru.vexillium.org/ntapi/ Would be very interesting to see a Wine based on this concept instead...

Of course it does at some point, but they're not meant to be used by the public, which is why: * you're linking to a URL with leetspeak in it, and not MSDN. * the codes change so frequently. * some of them disappear or are renumbered, even in service packs. If we wanted to do this for Wine, then it would also require emulation or something like OS X's Hypervisor.framework to catch system calls, which seems heavyhande…

> If we wanted to do this for Wine, then it would also require emulation or something like OS X's Hypervisor.framework to catch system calls, which seems heavyhanded when we have working code already.

It could also be done as a kernel level loadable module in the sort of style this Linux subsystem is being done, which is more what I was thinking. Changing a few numbers for every Windows service pack (really, not even necessary if you only support certain versions of ntdll for example) might not be so bad compare to re-implementing bug level compatibility with every Windows API.

Calling Wine "working" in its current state is a bit of an overstatement.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#403

Post by contextfree »

koolba wrote: post #215

Can anyone who's tried this out comment on the terminal? Does it have all the same issues as gitbash/cygwin/mingw/winpty (garbling, bad resizing, etc) or is there finally a decent local terminal on Windows?

Windows 10 console (not just for Bash, but cmd/powershell too) added a bunch of options like normal line wrap, highlighting and copy/paste that do improve a lot. The annoying thing is that these options aren't the default (for compatibility I guess?) and your settings in one don't seem to carry over to other console windows, I feel like I've set them like six times now.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#404

Post by jsmith0295 »

There's a lot of comments related to the legality of this and whether or not it violates either the GPL or at least the Linux trademark. Even if it wasn't technically legal, I don't think the right parties have anything to gain by suing.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#405

Post by simonh »

CodeCube wrote: post #382
simonh wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But doesn't calling it "Windows Subsystem for Linux" imply that actual Linux is involved, or even included? Suppose I marketed a range of flavoured additives to put in you Coke and called it "Simon's Flavours for Coca Cola"?

IANAL, but that would be perfectly fine ... you are totally allowed to write a piece of software, and say that it's for Windows, or for Mac. Or manufacture a piece of hardware that's for iOS, or Android. Or an aftermarket car part "for Honda", etc.

But Wine isn't 'for Windows' and this Microsoft thing isn't 'for Linux'. It doesn't involve the thing trademarked as Linux itself at all, in fact it replaces it. It's as though I wrote my own OS kernel with a Linux emulation layer to replace the Linux kernel and called it "Simon's Linux" or "Simon's OS for Linux". Suppose Wine renamed themselves "Linux Emulation for Windows".

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#406

Post by drdaeman »

kyberias wrote: post #401
drdaeman wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come? It's heavily marketed as "bash on Windows", and that "bash" is a GNU Bourne Again Shell, a part of GNU Operating System, developed under GNU Project.

This is not about Bash or any GNU software per se. Bash is just an example of a Linux executable that can be run on this system. One can apt-get install many more Ubuntu application binaries. Please invest some time to understand what it's about technically.

I do understand that technically speaking, this is an implementation of Linux-compatible APIs/ABIs on Windows, so an ELF binary targetting POSIX-compatible environment could be ran on Windows. No dependencies on GNU OS parts here, of course.

However, please notice that it's also marketed as - quoting the article - "the ability to run native Bash and GNU/Linux command-line tools [on Windows]" and currently implemented as GNU-based OS (Ubuntu) running on Windows. So - in practice - essentially, it's MS-supported (although hosted by Canonical) GNU on Windows.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#407

Post by maccard »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #261
maccard wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have had 25 years (Wild guess) to become literate, and they haven't. What makes you think that's going to change?

It probably isn't if the attitudes in present IT world continue. But it doesn't have to be this way - about the only thing needed to fix this situation is to create an expectation that yes, you have to sit down and spend 5 minutes learning before you can use this stuff effectively. Somehow nobody complains that cars, or microwave ovens are too complicated. Everybody knows they have to learn how to use them - either t…

> either through a training course or just by reading a manual.

If I had to read a manual to operate my microwave, toaster, coffee machine, sandwich maker, oven, games console, etc etc, I'd just get rid of them.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#408

Post by nkristoffersen »

rmwaite wrote: post #354
fizzbatter wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the AI comment was more to the fact that, they didn't safeguard against seemingly obvious outcomes - such as internet trolls trying to get the bot to say bad things. Many companies put no-go words during username creation, hitler, racist words, etc - so why didn't Microsoft? It might not have been simple to do, but still - hard not to see the outcome.

lol what the hell are you talking about. this thing is SUPPOSED to learn. you can't have ai and restrict what it learns, it defeats the entire purpose. isn't this the same thing that happens to people too? they go around the internet and soak up knowledge, sometimes racist, harmful, misinformation, but they soak it up nonetheless.

Now to be fair, we restrict what humans learn all the time. We try to teach morals and ethics to our children. We generally don't let kiddos run wild and learn whatever is around without some sort of structure.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#409

Post by TeMPOraL »

maccard wrote: post #407
TeMPOraL wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably isn't if the attitudes in present IT world continue. But it doesn't have to be this way - about the only thing needed to fix this situation is to create an expectation that yes, you have to sit down and spend 5 minutes learning before you can use this stuff effectively. Somehow nobody complains that cars, or microwave ovens are too complicated. Everybody knows they have to learn how to use them - either t…

> either through a training course or just by reading a manual. If I had to read a manual to operate my microwave, toaster, coffee machine, sandwich maker, oven, games console, etc etc, I'd just get rid of them.

You probably were taught how to use most of those by your parents, either directly or by observing. I find it hard to believe that any time you're dealing with a new class of appliances for the first time, you don't even peek at the manual or some tutorials.

I say class, because most tosters work the same, most microwaves work the same, most smartphones work the same and most 3D modelling programs work the same too. But you have to get that first little bit of knowledge about the class of tools from somewhere, even if from your own experimentation. Humans aren't born with knowledge how to use technology.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#410

Post by icebraining »

xorblurb wrote: post #381
icebraining wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If reimplementing and API propagates copyright, the only allowed licensing situation would be that MS releases the complete NT kernel under the GNU GPLv2 license. The GPL is not that expansive, it only extends to programs built upon GPL-licensed stuff, not for programs that just happen to have a GPL application running on them. A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not b…

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the hypothetical situation where an API itself is considered inheriting copyrights from the reference implementation -- similar to what Oracle argued about Java and Android.

Even if it was, the NT kernel wouldn't be affected, that's my point; only the translation layer would be.
Post reply on HN