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

411–420 of 434 posts

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#411

Post by kyberias »

drdaeman wrote: post #406
kyberias wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So - in practice - essentially, it's MS-supported (although hosted by Canonical) GNU on Windows.

I don't care how it's marketed.

Let me remind you that there have been numerous ports of GNU tools for the Windows operating system in the past. This does not allow you to run any more GNU tools on Windows than you previously had.

Therefore, essentially, this is not about "GNU on Windows". This is about running "Ubuntu Linux software on Windows" including, of course, and in addition to numerous other tools, the GNU tools.

Also, the original statement was: "That is just GNU running on the Windows kernel." This is obviously not just that.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#412

Post by chx »

CodeCube wrote: post #386
chx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be shocked. As I mentioned above, I wouldn't expect wireshark to run either. From what we gathered so far, this is a syscall translation layer and > No new system calls are added for cgroups - all support for querying and modifying cgroups is via this cgroup file system. Per https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/cgroups.t...

wireshark works :) https://twitter.com/bojanrajkovic/status/717810333663019008

What on earth? How is that even possible? o_O

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#413

Post by digi_owl »

redpanda_ua wrote: post #155
kchoudhu wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No cgroups = no systemd. Windows: a better linux than linux.

I am a new-ish Linux user. Can someone explain to me why systemd is so bad? Is it because it monopolized so many features? So it's not UNIX way of tiny programs working together? I feel like I am missing something.

Its complicated.

Unix was built around the human readable output of one binary being the input of another.

dbus, the carrier for much of the traffic between systemd parts, is far from human readable.

Also, one reason they give for developing everything in a single blob of code is that they can then change the protocol as they see fit.

This in turn makes it hard for third parties to replace a component, as they will constantly play catch up with the systemd developers.

Take logind for example. It depends on systemd-init being there and handling cgroups. Consolekit, what logind replaced, could be used on top of any init.

Gentoo forked udev into eudev after the former was merged with systemd, because it became a right pain to extract udev from the larger systemd code, even though at the time of merging it was promised that udev would still be usable separately. This because at every systemd release, the extraction process changed in some way or other.

With the traditional unix tools i can probably pipe some output from a GNU binary into busybox into a BSD binary and get the expected result. And if i don't i can break down the chain into parts, look at what they produce, and make adaptions right there in the terminal.

Anything similar for systemd will require a compiler and specialized tools for debugging dbus and whatsnot.

Maybe all this is fine in a devops environment where everything is in containers or virtual machines. But Linux got where it is because it was not just flexible, but also field repairable thanks to its unix heritage.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#414

Post by eulji »

merpnderp wrote: post #379
morsch wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not what embrace-extend-extinguish is about. The worry about EEE is that they establish dominance through vertical integration, introduce incompatibilities through both incompetence (bugs) and malicious behaviour (features), which will weaken and destroy the free standard implementations. I'm not worried though. This is a neat hack, and may be useful for some people who for whatever personal reason won't s…

*nix servers now handle 99% of the web. Microsoft isn't going to push through breaking standards.

99% public web. 90% of intranet is MS

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#415

Post by miguelrochefort »

te0006 wrote: post #301
miguelrochefort wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this will disappear within the next 5 years, as the distinction between programming and consumption narrows down. It seems like a vast majority of software developers, consciously or not, do not wish for software development to improve beyond a certain point as they fear it would become too accessible and therefore lower the value of their skills. The truth is that we actively make programming as difficult as…

Interesting ideas (even though your prediction regarding the next five years seems rather... bold). Where is this vision sketched in some more detail? Any links?

Half of what I ever said online is about this. Somehow, I never got to write a detailed description of the vision.

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to make that happen.

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#416

Post by RobMurray »

chx wrote: post #64
sspiff wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux and Windows can both see each others filesystem, but they are visible at specific mount points in each environment. You can't just use /home/chx/todo.txt as a path from any Windows application, but you can find that file through some other path.

Very interesting. What about case sensitivity?

It does seam to be case sensitive! Creating two files called a and A works. They even show up in explorer. It doesn't work to delete one of them from explorer though. No errors - they just reappear. After trying, I now have a file called a that I can't delete from bash or explorer!

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#418

Post by scrupulusalbion »

fizzbatter wrote: post #389
rmwaite wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, to be clear, i didn't say restrict what it learns - i said safeguard against outcomes. Or, are you arguing that Microsoft knew the bot would slur racist insults in a laughably short timeframe, and only planned to run the bot for said timeframe? The very fact that they had to pull the plug seems to suggest that it was not desired, and as such, it should have been safe guarded against. An example safeguard being,…

Did they even have any sort of filter? If they at least blacklisted these words [0], then that seems like a reasonable enough effort on its own. However, these developers would have had to be living in a bubble to not know about trolls from 4chan.

All in all, this is a lesson that some high-profile person/group eventually had to learn on our behalf. Now, when an unknowing manager asks why your chat bot needs to avoid certain offensive phrases because, "our clientele aren't a bunch of racists", you can just point him to this story. The actual racists are tame by comparison to what trolls will do to your software.

[0] = https://github.com/shutterstock/List-of-Dirty-Naughty-Obscen...

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#419

Post by JdeBP »

shultays wrote: post #217

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Windows, is in fact, GNU/Windows, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Windows.

Just remember to attribute this particular flavour of this well-worn running joke to Mike Gerwitz.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11446696

Re: Bash on Ubuntu on Windows

#420

Post by nailer »

tluyben2 wrote: post #360
nailer wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously people occasionally do talk in person via pressing buttons. That doesn't mean it's generally preferred. Recorded speech is also searchable so not sure that's relevant.

> Recorded speech is also searchable so not sure that's relevant. It is ; recorded speech is not very searchable, especially if you are talking in a group in a conference where people can be from different countries with different dialects (which is the normal situation for our group talks). Also it is not convenient and sometimes not possible to record every (conference) meeting (too much noise etc). With text it's…

Totally agreed the tech is not there yet. I just also believe at the current rate machine learning is going it the issues will soon be much less relevant.
Post reply on HN