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

Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

blogs.windows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

#61

Post by itomato »

monkmartinez wrote: post #40
itomato wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt they want POSIX ever again. They want 'me too' POSIX-enough Developer workloads right up to the Deploy phase, where they have are building cushy, hard-to-evade on-ramp to Azure.

Your argument is confusing... Can I deploy my Django app on Azure? If the answer is yes, what exactly, is "me too" about that?

Does your current code generation pipeline rely on a GNU, BSD or Microsoft Userland?

How about Libraries, Compiler or Runtime?

'Me too' is in MSFT providing a "Super Runtime" in the form of WSL.

If your app doesn't require Microsoft's kernel or user space functions, why should your team?

Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

#62

Post by pjmlp »

gargarplex wrote: post #17
pjmlp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really because what Microsoft is doing is actually GNU/Windows. Google is busy with ChromeOS/Linux and Android/Linux. Apple keeps developing their NeXTSTEP/BSD derivative.

I like the precision and clarity of your thinking. Would you be interested in being paid to write freelance blog posts?

No thanks, my hands are already full as it is.

Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

#63

Post by gargarplex »

mariusmg wrote: post #57
Spivak wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually really interesting. Google doesn't have a kernel so they're borrowing Linux. Microsoft doesn't have a good developer userspace so they're borrowing GNU's.

>Microsoft doesn't have a good developer userspace What does this even mean ? They do have the best IDE on the market ( Visual Studio). What they are really lacking is a proper console emulator app, but there is still the excellent ConEmu for this (3rd party , doesn't belong to MS).

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/87625/what-is-diffe...

Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

#64

Post by basch »

Fnoord wrote: post #46
nerflad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one could even argue they are somewhere between the embrace and extend phase. I see it more as grasping at straws to stay relevant. The Ballmer-era FUD campaign was mostly a failure (and bad PR). "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

With Pichai they're steering more towards a service-oriented company. Linux clearly has a place in their vision. You can see this also in their offerings on Azure. Microsoft is a large company. In recent years, many *NIX developers joined them. Although I don't have statistics. Gone are the days where its funny or righteous to bash Microsoft on /. heck gone is /. Its also not only Microsoft; its Wintel at a whole. De…

the service oriented One Microsoft vision was Ballmer's last major contribution before walking out the door.

https://genius.com/Steve-ballmer-one-microsoft-annotated

Nadella (Pichai is google) is executing the roadmap Ballmer laid.

Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

#65

Post by jasonkostempski »

limeblack wrote: post #58
jasonkostempski wrote: post #54

That name is horribly misleading. This is a Linux Subsystem for Windows Server. I'm guessing they wanted their brand name first, clarity be damned.

You can't put a trademark name at the front of a product name is what I have been told unless you get permission from the trademark holder. Not sure if this is true I also would love to know the reason.

I have no clue if you're right but that sounds as reasonable as anything else I know about the trademark/copyright/i.p./patent system.

Edit: This actually seems like a sane restriction in the context of the trademark system. Without even looking up the rules, it's pretty obvious people will see "Linux ..." and assume it's endorsed, or at least unopposed, by the trademark holder, which can be somewhat ambiguous with free software since it can be used so freely.

Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

#66

Post by Fnoord »

basch wrote: post #64
Fnoord wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Pichai they're steering more towards a service-oriented company. Linux clearly has a place in their vision. You can see this also in their offerings on Azure. Microsoft is a large company. In recent years, many *NIX developers joined them. Although I don't have statistics. Gone are the days where its funny or righteous to bash Microsoft on /. heck gone is /. Its also not only Microsoft; its Wintel at a whole. De…

the service oriented One Microsoft vision was Ballmer's last major contribution before walking out the door. https://genius.com/Steve-ballmer-one-microsoft-annotated Nadella (Pichai is google) is executing the roadmap Ballmer laid.

Ouch, I'm sorry I mixed them up and thanks for the reference on Ballmer's last minute change of course

Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows Server

#67

Post by xorblurb »

ajross wrote: post #33
xorblurb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except WSL has little in common with traditional NT personalities. Traditional NT personalities were a false good idea, and have been a failure in the long term, especially to run Unix workloads -- however this jugement is easy with insight -- when it came out traditional NT personalities were quite interesting.

No idea about code commonality, but the broad architecture of WSL is basically the same as the original POSIX personality from the 90's. The "foreign" process runs in a special mode and handles a different set of system calls via a different dispatch mechanism in the kernel, but still on top of the same set of kernel functionality beneath that.

Traditional NT personalities were about the mechanism details.

Otherwise it is very current in operating systems to have a common kernel running different kind of userspace using different API - so of course there are some similarities, but only because it would be completely impossible not to have some.

Post reply on HN