19 ms·

Microsoft and Canonical partner to bring Ubuntu to Windows 10

• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• FLGMwt 11y ago
  Would anyone be able to give insight on why this would be useful? Im curious, sure, but I'm at a loss to think of a use case.
  • jonathonf 11y ago
    Instead of supporting a hybrid/dual boot desktop you support Windows, and run Linux applications on top.
  • eulji 11y ago
    You would not be running ubuntu in virtualbox but "natively" on Windows. Allowing you to have a unix layer for your interpreters,runtimes whatever. You could still develop stuff for server OS while having the ability to play games without having to reboot or use wine inside linux.
  • staticelf 11y ago
    Maybe to be able to run linux programs on a windows machine? Could be good for developers targeting the linux platform, especially with the now ported .NET platform, MSSQL and so on.
  • d2p 11y ago
    As well as what others have said, it might long-term give an easier path for developing things that work across platforms too. Lots of companies spend a lot of effort to run code on multiple platforms (SQL Server recently announced Linux support; .NET core has supported runtimes on Linux too and tons of OS languages have runtimes for multiple platforms). It would be great for both devs and end-users if the number of things that are different between platforms was reduced.
  • ygra 11y ago
    Perhaps avoid dual-booting or VMs in environments where you need both Linux and Windows. This sounds either a bit like CoLinux, or like the POSIX subsystem revived. Remember: Windows has kernel support for different userspace APIs, and the well-known Windows API is just that: A user-mode subsystem running atop the kernel (there have been OS/2 and POSIX subsystems before).
  • _ZeD_ 11y ago
    I'm not sure I fall in the "usual" scenario, but my primary OS is linux (slackware) from years. I just miss some AAA games on my windows machine
  • twoodfin 11y ago
    My guess for the marketing target is developers who use Macs because their tools of choice are native to POSIX, with Windows API implementations as second-class citizens at best. Maybe things have improved since, but at least a few years ago, it was always a crapshoot to try to get some new open source tool set up on Windows/Visual Studio, vs. batting close to 1.000 on Mac with configure && make && make install. Another way to put this is that the world Terminal.app gives you access to is a huge selling point for developers, and this is part of Microsoft's attempt to provide something as useful.
    • b34r 11y ago
      They haven't and this is exactly it, as least for me as a web developer.
  • supergreg 11y ago
    Docker containers would be an excellent use case.
    • jasonjei 11y ago
      I can't +1 this one enough. I have some developers on my team who insist on using Docker on a Windows setup, and it is painful to use with VirtualBox. OSX is better because it doesn't feel too different from Linux (aside from setting docker machine ENV variables). Still virtualized so you take a performance hit.
      • jjuel 11y ago
        Docker recently announced a beta where they are using native systems in both Windows and OS X though. So I doubt this is the driving force for that.
        • bboreham 11y ago
          It's more complicated than that: The beta announced a few days back by Docker uses HyperV to boot a Linux kernel to run Linux Docker. The preview announced around a year ago by Microsoft and Docker is a native Windows implementation of Docker, running on the next Windows OS. [later] But... This new layer should let you run most Linux containers straight on top of the next Windows. Interesting...
        • jasonjei 11y ago
          The Docker beta that was announced is using Windows 10 builtin virtualization APIs. In theory when utilizing kernel virtualization features there will be less overhead (closer to the metal), but still overhead. I wonder how they will make Ubuntu happen on Windows. Reading some of the comments, some speculate a subsystem, while others suggest an interoperable interface. Edit: reading bitcrazed's comments it looks like it will be implemented a la WINE. No need to recompile binaries made for Linux x86; you'll be able to run apt packages from Ubuntu out of the box.
  • akerro 11y ago
    First stage of EEE strategy.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • joezydeco 11y ago
    My office IT will only allow and manage Windows PCs on directory server. So I need to run VirtualBox everywhere to develop in Linux. If I could cut that step out, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
    • JdeBP 11y ago
      You'd almost certainly be in for a nasty shock. IT departments not worrying much about what you do as the superuser inside a virtual machine that is running only with your user credentials, is one thing. But tell them that you're now going to be installing and running random Ubuntu softwares, not in a virtual machine but natively within Windows, and they will prick up their ears and start to take notice. Even the ones who are alright about what's being installed will want to think about things like control over what packages can be installed and locally-hosted repositories. "So, tell me how I set group policy for your apt-get installer?" And if that is not a worry, let me relate some personal experience of using the Windows NT POSIX subsystem. Anti-virus programs, particularly the ones with the whizz-o features of "let's check what 'the crowd' said about this program" or "let's run this program for a little bit in my controlled execution environment to see whether it does malware-type things", don't like this a lot. I had to go through the unblocking of "/bin/foo is a rare program" so often, for everything from "ls" to "ftp", that it was in danger of becoming an automatic reflex. Goodness knows what the likes of DeepGuard will make of programs that use a wholly new set of system call entrypoints into the kernel. (-:
      • joezydeco 11y ago
        Very good point. Looks like I'm sticking with Virtualbox. =)
  • mvaliente2001 11y ago
    Shell and command line tools: Linux users can be more productive in Windows now. The command line interface is very confortable for do a lot of things. If you need to do batch work (rename a lot of files, onvert some images, add metadata to your mp3 collection), you can do it now in the console. Before this, the alternative in windows was to use a sub-par shell, or install several graphical application and expend your evening clicking here and there. Applications: Now you can install and configure applications like apache, postquesql, etc. on windows in the same way you do in linux/other unix platforms. Strategically, this is a big win for Microsoft. Now they can go to their clients that are moving or thinking about moving to Linux and tell them "There's no need to migrate, just install your apps in Windows."
• jkot 11y ago
  Interested in how long it will last this time. Windows NT were POSIX compliant long time ago, but that was discontinued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
  • gpvos 11y ago
    The POSIX subsystem was so crippled that it was unusable (no graphics or network). SfU was neither free nor included by default, except for one free version which also happened to be its last. Also at those times Linux did not have the market penetration that it currently has with Android.
    • twoodfin 11y ago
      Right. As I've heard it, the POSIX subsystem was essentially a checkbox feature to meet some government contracting requirements.
      • wolfgke 11y ago
        You confuse the POSIX subsystem with SFU/Interix (originally called "OpenNT", but soon renamed to "Interix". Later bought by Microsoft and rebranded as "Services for UNIX"): > https://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2.html https://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two... > http://brianreiter.org/2010/08/24/the-sad-history-of-the-microsoft-posix-subsystem/ http://brianreiter.org/2010/08/24/the-sad-history-of-the-mic...
        • gpvos 11y ago
          I specifically remember that I read that (it was a checkbox feature) about the ancient POSIX subsystem. The SFU/Interix system was a bit more capable, I think? I did install it at one time, but never really used it. Edit: yes, that is in fact exactly what the first link you gave says: The POSIX subsystem was added as the POSIX standard had become very prevalent in procurement contracts. [...] This original subsystem was, I think it's fair to say, deliberately crippled to make it not useful for any real-world applications. Applications using it had no network access and no GUI access, [...] SFU contains a full POSIX environment, with a Software development kit allowing applications to be written that have access to networking and GUI API's.
• staticelf 11y ago
  This is basically a dream come true for me if this is executed well.
  • mizzao 11y ago
    Agreed. I currently have an Ubuntu guest VM on a Windows host and use both simultaneously for day-to-day work.
    • ewzimm 11y ago
      I do the same thing! Even now, WiFi has poor support on Linux with many computers, especially newer business tablets, so VMs or remote desktops are the only options. This will mean I can get full performance.
      • mizzao 11y ago
        Yep, running a Surface Book with this setup and it's fantastic.
• pvdebbe 11y ago
  This has a faint scent of an early April fool joke.
  • tempodox 11y ago
    It does, but then find me a Linux user who doesn't dual-boot into Windoze for desktop apps. This way, you save one reboot. I wonder, however, how stable this will be...
    • bsharitt 11y ago
      I can't think I a single thing I'd need to boot into Windows for anymore.
      • jarcane 11y ago
        Games.
        • mcroft 11y ago
          Fortunately for me, the only game I really care about (Civ5) is available on Linux thanks to SteamOS. It certainly seems as though I am in the tiniest of minorities, though.
      • ausjke 11y ago
        for me it's turbotax that does not have a linux version
        • wyldfire 11y ago
          For the past 5-6 years I've used https://taxact.com/ https://taxact.com/ and haven't needed Windows.
      • typon 11y ago
        Visual Studio is better than any IDE in existence. With ViEmu it becomes even better.
• wslh 11y ago
  > It also seems unlikely that Ubuntu will be bringing its Unity interface with it. Instead the focus will be on Bash and other CLI tools, such as make, gawk and grep. I will love it but not having a graphical interface limits the added value. Currently the main problem with running a desktop Linux in a VM is the limited support for 3D/2D that increased CPU usage making your whole computer unusable. On the server side Hyper-V in Windows 10 is a partial solution that already works.
  • anthk 11y ago
    > Currently the main problem with running a desktop Linux in a VM is the limited support for 3D/2D that increased CPU usage making your whole computer unusable. Bullshit.
    • wslh 11y ago
      Excuse me... It seems like you are an ignorant and happy downvoter. HN is for civilized discussions, if you don't agree make your point. For anybody else, just search this on Google: 2d 3d cpu ubuntu (virtualbox OR vmware OR "hyper-v")
      • anthk 11y ago
        VBOX Guest Additions, Virgl for KVM, GPU passthrough .
        • wslh 11y ago
          So... you know something that I don't and instead of teaching me you insult me. Also, your answer doesn't invalidate what I said since these are experimental approaches with many issues (see for example https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69732 https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69732 ) Now, have you tried these experimental approaches with Unity on VMware/VirtualBox/Hyper-V? Please let us know your results so anyone can benefit of that.
          • 11y ago
• venomsnake 11y ago
  Another item on the Apocalypse is coming list is checked. On a more serious note - Unity is something I deeply hate, and a lot will depend on the quality of the implementation. It will be good to develop easily for linux too.
• szczepano 11y ago
  quite similar to Microsoft and Nokia partnership
• jwildeboer 11y ago
  Project Janus reloaded? AFAICS it's the same approach. Some shim layer that translates between Linux kernel API and native Windows API. http://www.cnet.com/news/suns-solaris-10-to-run-linux-apps-too/# http://www.cnet.com/news/suns-solaris-10-to-run-linux-apps-t...!
  • nbaksalyar 11y ago
    It actually works on SmartOS (an open Solaris derivative): http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx
  • wyldfire 11y ago
    Maybe the NT kernel could gain a linux-syscall-compatible layer, instead of adding compatibility in userspace. That would allow for compatible (same-arch) binaries! (EDIT: this would also require ELF loaders and all kinds of other good stuff, but still a possibility IMO)
    • Revik 11y ago
      Guess what, there actually is an ELF loader in the compatibility layer: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcTwejAUEAAq_jR.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcTwejAUEAAq_jR.jpg
      • JdeBP 11y ago
        One (more) thing that is conspicuously glossed over is non-ELF executables. We've seen Win32 programs invoking ELF64 binaries demonstrated. And of course the Windows NT Linux subsystem already "knows" that it's a Linux subsystem process when a program comes to exec() a script, and doesn't have to worry about checking binary formats over fork() because the program image doesn't change. But missing so far has been Win32 programs invoking Linux executable scripts, that have #! lines.
    • JdeBP 11y ago
      > Maybe the NT kernel could gain a linux-syscall-compatible layer [...]. That would allow for compatible (same-arch) binaries! What makes you think "maybe"? This is (reportedly) exactly what's happening. What did you infer was happening from the headlined article?
• leni536 11y ago
  This was possible few years ago on x86 win XP. http://www.colinux.org/?section=home http://www.colinux.org/?section=home I guess it's possible to do something like this again.
• typon 11y ago
  This might be the most exciting news I've heard in a long time. Being able to use Visual Studio and .NET for web development while using zsh and all the other Linux tools? Dreamland.
  • ebbv 11y ago
    Different strokes.. that sounds like an absolute nightmare to me. .NET is not a good web development framework, and Visual Studio is totally overkill for web development.
    • alimbada 11y ago
      I'd like to know what kind of web applications you've built and what tech stack you've used for them for you to make such an uninformed statement like that.
      • ebbv 11y ago
        I'm not really interested in posting my CV to HN. Suffice to say I've been the lead web developer at several companies and have been doing that for ~13 years now. I've used all the popular web development languages, and written everything from small applications to web sites with hundreds of thousands of users. I personally think .NET is much worse than any of the more common web languages (even PHP or Perl) for the web. If I were writing a Windows application then I'd probably write it in .NET using Visual Studio, but not a web application. As I said in my original comment "Different strokes.", you may like .NET. That's fine. It might be the right choice for you and the wrong one for me. I was more commenting that it was amazing to me that someone would think it was awesome because it sounds like the complete opposite to me. I guess I should have asked what you find compelling about writing web applications in .NET.
        • 0xFFC 11y ago
          I think technical reason is much better than bringing up your CV.
• jaxondu 11y ago
  I was hoping for a fully supported Ubuntu running on MS Surface Pro.
• JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I think eventually, we'll see Windows transform into a Linux distro with a Windows UI. I'm not trying to wrinkle anyone's shorts, but this just makes a lot of financial sense. Let the "community" do most of the OS development and only maintain the Windows UI. This allows them to focus more on services and Azure.
  • b34r 11y ago
    Severely doubt it.
    • zdkl 11y ago
      Let me dream.
  • criley2 11y ago
    >I think eventually, we'll see Windows transform into a Linux distro with a Windows UI. As long as you consider OSX to be a Linux distro (lol) with a Apple UI, then sure. But I doubt Microsoft ever gets any closer to unix-like systems than Apple is.
    • Delmania 11y ago
      > But I doubt Microsoft ever gets any closer to unix-like systems than Apple is. I'm confused by this comment. OS X is literally UNIX. In fact, I think it's the ONLY UNIX system available to consumers.
      • SSLy 11y ago
        You can get solaris for free from oracle.
        • Delmania 11y ago
          I knew that, but I left it out because I don't consider it consumer-grade. It's not something you'd find on a PC you'd buy at Best Buy, Tiger Direct, Amazon, etc, nor is it something you'd give to a non technical user and expect them to use.
• 0xCMP 11y ago
  Amazing. Can't tell you how many times we've asked Microsoft for a better shell like linux. Or how many times we've said (half-jokingly) that Microsoft should just give up and use a more unix-y file system and swap out the kernel for linux. This all not to say that Microsoft tech in these low level areas don't have advantages over linux or are bad, but it'd be nice to have it at a low level.
  • JdeBP 11y ago
    > Microsoft should just give up and use a more unix-y file system and swap out the kernel for linux. You do realize that that's the exact opposite of what is happening here, ne? The Windows NT file system is used, and the Linux kernel is being swapped out for the Windows NT one. "At a low level" NTFS actually is "Unix-y", of course. It had to be in order to support the POSIX subsystems. Case sensitivity, hard links, symbolic links, and a wide degree of freedom for filename characters are all there, at a low level.
    • 0xCMP 11y ago
      Yes I do, but the ideas/conversations have been happening, on and off, for many years before this. Especially when they weren't doing so hot and the idea gets floated around (obviously without much serious thought, just something we say) "oh man, what if they just gave up on that part and used linux to make it all work" -- Then everyone goes "that'd be cool, but then all those apps wouldn't work..." Hence why they chose this route which required some pretty fancy research on their part to implement. Which is even cooler imho. Probably the best senario for Windows/MS over all in the end.
• pritambaral 11y ago
  So a bunch of CLI tools, that use a shim layer to translate Linux syscals to Windows kernel API. I think this will be somewhat like OS X's POSIX base. I'm dreaming this could mean eventually being able to run KDE or openbox or sth, perhaps by community effort.
• pmlnr 11y ago
  so this is http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ v2?
• daveloyall 11y ago
  Embrace! Extend! Extinguish!
• kevin_b_er 11y ago
  Sounds like a regression on Canonical's issue #1. The resolution case was "A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software.". This article does indeed appear to showcase active work toward a regression on bug #1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
  • schoen 11y ago
    Mark Shuttleworth marked that bug as resolved a couple of years ago, which I think was a mistake. I recently reproduced this bug in that I went to a local PC store and attempted to buy a machine without any proprietary software. They said that they didn't have any such machines available (never mind a majority of their machines, as suggested by the original bug text).
    • vlunkr 11y ago
      He also uses the popularity of Android as part of his reason for closing it. Sure, Android itself is open source, but you still have to go out of your way to find Android devices that are purely FOSS.
      • kogepathic 11y ago
        > but you still have to go out of your way to find Android devices that are purely FOSS. Can you elaborate? I'm not aware of any physical Android devices which are able to boot and function as an Android device (e.g. with a hardware accelerated GUI, can make phone calls over GSM/CDMA) that don't require proprietary vendor blobs. I am excluding the Android emulator because I don't think it qualifies as a "device"
      • mastax 11y ago
        > but you still have to go out of your way to find Android devices that are purely FOSS This is pedantry, and certainly there's a sliding scale of openness for devices. But unless I'm very mistaken, there are no devices available that even approach 'purely FOSS'. What would such an 'Android' phone even be? No google play services, no google play store, crippled and buggy open GPU drivers, and still a proprietary baseband. Not that I'm happy with this situation it just seems impractical.
• systems 11y ago
  i kind of prefer it the other way around, like others here have suggested i want a better wine, that can run sql server, and ms visual studio
  • rplnt 11y ago
    I don't see much reason to do either. Virtualization pretty much works now. I'm sure there are use cases when that's not enough, but I think majority of people who want Windws+Linux would be happy with either of those running in a VM (depending on their use case).
• jbandela1 11y ago
  This is awesome. My guess, is that they will also integrate building Linux applications with Visual Studio. See https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2015/11/18/announcing-the-vs-gdb-debugger-extension/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2015/11/18/announcin... for an example of how to debug using gdb in Visual Studio. Having an integrated Linux environment, would make this support seamless. Then Visual Studio becomes the cross-platform hub for building code for Windows, Linux, iOS, and Android.
• NamPNQ 11y ago
  Ubuntu join with win shjt?
• new_hackers 11y ago
  Glad to see this announcement. I hope this doesn't dampen the emphasis for PowerShell which is a better Bash for Windows
  • 0xFFC 11y ago
    I am seeing this narrative in HN and web which is ridiculous, You have nothing to worry about PowerShell,Microsoft showed they are dead serious about Windows 10 and PowerShell deeply integrated to .net platform. So I am pretty sure and I can predict nothing will happen to PowerShell because this is against company interest. They are trying to introduce bash as native shell as another option. That's all.
    • new_hackers 11y ago
      right, which means more and more people won't bother learning PowerShell and just use grep and the like. It is still somehow a secret that PowerShell even exists. I can't count the number of Windows users I know that still open cmd.exe, or install cygwin so they can grep files. I'm just saying that dealing with text is inferior to .NET objects on windows, and the PowerShell pipeline is much more powerful. However, I don't know how many people will end up learning this cause, "hey I can just use bash!"
  • lottin 11y ago
    Good joke!
• bovermyer 11y ago
  I am inordinately happy about this. The article was a little sparse on details, though... is there a link where we can learn more?
  • swah 11y ago
    Me too - while I love Linux (inside a Putty terminal), I also love[1] Windows as a desktop. [1] Meaning being very familiar and having fewer disappointments...
  • lstamour 11y ago
    Scott's blog, as mentioned above: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUsermodeUbuntuLinuxBinariesOnWindows10.aspx http://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUs...
  • niutech 11y ago
    http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.html http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.htm...
• javanix 11y ago
  I'll be very curious to the the source of this native-Windows port.
  • saulr 11y ago
    I don't think bash itself has been ported, it's simply running under a Linux subsystem. I imagine it's similar to the discontinued POSIX and UNIX[2] subsystems. In this case, bash probably believes that it's running in on Linux, not that it's been ported over to compile in Windows. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem [2] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
• outworlder 11y ago
  Hell has indeed frozen over, and that's good news! From the screenshots, that actually looks like a proper terminal too. I wonder what will happen to Powershell now.
  • brazzledazzle 11y ago
    Powershell will probably be fine. Besides them both being a REPL and scripting language they're very different. I guess the simplest way to put it is in powershell you're passing around objects and in bash you're passing around strings. That's an oversimplification though. I'd start wondering about powershell's future when bash starts getting the ability to tap into .Net the way powershell does.
    • TallGuyShort 11y ago
      As exemplified by this announcement, Bash in isolation is not that valuable. It's the standard UNIX tools that most Bash scripts just assume are there that really round it out as a platform. Supporting the piping of objects instead of text? Not such a big deal. Replacing UNIX tools with object versions? I agree - very valuable, but now a massive undertaking involving redefining a lot of flags, etc.
    • TillE 11y ago
      Right, PowerShell is probably irreplaceable as a sysadmin tool. But for other tasks lumped into the "scripting" category, I'd much rather use bash.
  • james-skemp 11y ago
    Was hoping the comments here would be talking about PowerShell. I try to use it whenever I can, but if bash performs the same, the community may leverage it more for shared scripts/etcetera.
  • optimiz3 11y ago
    Let's hope death by obsolescence. Being forced to learn a proprietary not-invented-here scripting language with little value-add over Bash is an anathema to any developer.
• chubot 11y ago
  I know I've run bash on Windows before -- but I don't remember if it was with or without Cygwin. I assume this announcement is running bash natively, without Cygwin or anything VM-like. Did they have to contribute patches to bash, or just install it by default? I don't see anything on the bash mailing list, but the development is not particularly open.
  • nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    https://twitter.com/jacobrossi/status/715209978286514176 https://twitter.com/jacobrossi/status/715209978286514176
    • chubot 11y ago
      OK interesting -- native Ubuntu Linux binaries on Windows too. FreeBSD and Illumos are also emulating Linux too, i.e. translating syscalls in the kernel. I wonder if Microsoft grabbed some of that code since it's open source :) This just shows how standards are made... implement first then think about it later :) I don't think the Linux syscall interface is the model of clarity, but that's what we have. EDIT: This answers my original question... apparently they didn't patch bash -- they patched their own kernel to run the bash binary, and all Linux binaries! It was done at a binary level rather than source level.
• 0x0 11y ago
  I wonder if this will mean that Windows will ship a more up to date Bash than OSX! Apple stopped updating Bash in OSX when the upstream license changed from GPL2 to GPL3, I believe. (Fortunately, they keep the bundled zsh more up to date)
  • hxegon 11y ago
    wow, so... 2007?
    • 0x0 11y ago
      Yup % uname -a; bash --version; zsh --version Darwin hostname 15.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 15.4.0: Fri Feb 26 22:08:05 PST 2016; root:xnu-3248.40.184~3/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 GNU bash, version 3.2.57(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin15) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. zsh 5.0.8 (x86_64-apple-darwin15.0)
      • y4mi 11y ago
        thank goodness zsh is the superior shell anyway
        • stula_0 11y ago
          It really should be the default shell by now. I don't the see the point in Apple maintaining the 2007 version of bash with security updates when they can just promote ZSH which has near 0 breaking changes from bash
          • NetStrikeForce 11y ago
            Apple can't do that or many people will just move away to... Well, Windows now. Users with zsh as their default shell are a tiny minority.
            • JdeBP 11y ago
• BrainInAJar 11y ago
  So they've reintroduced Services for UNIX Applications? This isn't news. This is Microsoft up to the same dirty tricks they pulled in the 90's to try to kill UNIX.
• frsandstone 11y ago
  It's interesting to see Microsoft move their OS more and more in sync with Linux/OSX. Maybe they should invest in a Linux kernel based OS and build a compatibility wrapper on top of that instead?
  • Delmania 11y ago
    Drivers. There are a lo of device drivers written for the Windows kernel that would need to be updated.
  • Aleman360 11y ago
    Why? The Windows kernel has many advantages over Linux.
    • fleetfox 11y ago
      I'm genuinely curious. Can you name few?
      • herewulf 11y ago
        It has a very special blue graphics mode built in.
• hobs 11y ago
  Some additional details from Scott Hanselman: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUsermodeUbuntuLinuxBinariesOnWindows10.aspx http://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUs... "This is a real native Bash Linux binary running on Windows itself. It's fast and lightweight and it's the real binaries. This is an genuine Ubuntu image on top of Windows with all the Linux tools I use like awk, sed, grep, vi, etc. It's fast and it's lightweight. The binaries are downloaded by you - using apt-get - just as on Linux, because it is Linux. You can apt-get and download other tools like Ruby, Redis, emacs, and on and on. This is brilliant for developers that use a diverse set of tools like me." "This runs on 64-bit Windows and doesn't use virtual machines. Where does bash on Windows fit in to your life as a developer? If you want to run Bash on Windows, you've historically had a few choices. Cygwin - GNU command line utilities compiled for Win32 with great native Windows integration. But it's not Linux. HyperV and Ubuntu - Run an entire Linux VM (dedicating x gigs of RAM, and x gigs of disk) and then remote into it (RDP, VNC, ssh) Docker is also an option to run a Linux container, under a HyperV VM Running bash on Windows hits in the sweet spot. It behaves like Linux because it executes real Linux binaries. Just hit the Windows Key and type bash. "
  • drinchev 11y ago
    > This is a real native Bash Linux binary running on Windows itself. How does it work without VM? I'm super curious!
    • nickysielicki 11y ago
      The same way Wine works for Windows binaries. Translate system calls.
      • vetinari 11y ago
        Wine has it easier - it does not translate system calls, it needs "only" dll loader and a set of dlls exporting the right symbols. NT system calls are not exposed to userspace; only system-supplied dlls can use them. It is done by changing syscall codes for every build, so non-system app would never know, which syscall number to use.
• Philipp__ 11y ago
  Grabbed popcorns, now open the floodgates!
• untog 11y ago
  Well, this has increased the changes of my next laptop being a Surface Book by around 100%. I already loved the form factor of the thing, but lack of bash was absolutely causing me to hesitate and wonder if I could justify doing all my work in a Linux VM or something (I can't). I'm genuinely very tired of OS X, which (to my perception at least) has gotten steadily worse with every version. I for one will be happy to switch.
  • dimgl 11y ago
    Really...? What would you change about OSX? I just switched from Windows to a Mac and I can't see myself ever going back...
    • untog 11y ago
      Like I said, maybe it's my perception, but I've lost count of the number of times it has failed to connect to a Wi-Fi network, randomly crashed... it's been unable to connect to any links from http://t.co http://t.co for months, for goodness sake (this has recently been fixed). I think part of my objections are that OS X used to be absolutely rock solid, around the Snow Leopard era. An entire release dedicated just to tuning up the OS! Unheard of now - I will never install a new version until the x.1 patch is out, there are always huge bugs. I don't expect Windows to be rock solid, I just don't expect it to be any worse than OS X any more.
      • dimgl 11y ago
        I haven't had any bugs at all on El Capitan.
    • Osiris 11y ago
      I have far more issues with OS X than with Windows. I get kernel panics, waking from sleep crashes, weird issues with external monitors not being detected as connected, or worse, disconnected. Windows also offers a lot more customizations than OS X. However, there are things I like about OS X also, like spaces and multi-touch trackpad support. I use both on a daily basis.
• neilsimp1 11y ago
  http://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUsermodeUbuntuLinuxBinariesOnWindows10.aspx http://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUs... Some more info on this
• rsp1984 11y ago
  A lot of bash already exists in the "git bash" shell that comes with the git Windows installation [1]. I've been using it for a while now for a lot of non-git stuff too and I'm quite happy with it. [1] https://git-for-windows.github.io/ https://git-for-windows.github.io/
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• tarr11 11y ago
  Interesting, as a rails dev who develops mainly on vim, the main reason I've switched to an MBP from a Thinkpad was because of this. Will reconsider a windows laptop again next, if build quality and battery life are comparable.
  • mkozlows 11y ago
    The Windows version of gVim is much worse than MacVim, if that's a thing that matters to you.
  • eswat 11y ago
    Base coming to Windows has nudged me to strongly consider going back as well. But finding a laptop with comparable build quality to a MacBook is also what I’m finding troublesome to accomplish.
    • izacus 11y ago
      Hmm? Pretty much everything in MacBook pricing bracket is comparable (highend ASUS Zenbooks, Dell XPSs, highend Thinkpads, etc.)
• hartator 11y ago
  Actual tweet: https://twitter.com/windowsdev/status/715211234702966785 https://twitter.com/windowsdev/status/715211234702966785 No much information for now, but that seems to be a little revolution.
• DoubleMalt 11y ago
  That will not make me use windows on my computers, but it will make at places that use Windows sooo much better.
• sz4kerto 11y ago
  What about file permissions? If I can develop on a native IDE running on Windows and share files with a Linux VM (or anything running Docker) without screwing up file permissions, then I'm on.
  • hollander 11y ago
    It seems like it has its own file system, maybe a virtual one. See the screenshots.
• davnn 11y ago
  I'm really impressed with Microsoft's decisions lately. To put it bluntly: YOU GUYS ARE AWESOME.
  • j1vms 11y ago
    Yes, I also think that their decisions over the past few years are pointing to a real renaissance within the organization, and they are starting "again" to focus on their core strengths.
• grandalf 11y ago
  Wow, the lack of a solid, built-in bash and apt-get has been the major reason I'd never consider windows for everyday use.
  • lottin 11y ago
    What about the lack of middle-click paste and virtual desktops?
    • grandalf 11y ago
      Yeah virtual desktops are nice, I am not generally in the habit of using middle click anymore though.
• mixmastamyk 11y ago
  Very interesting and great to hear, though I would prefer zsh or fish. Didn't they fix their command window (terminal) too? Recently, MS is making all the right moves technically, but they've also doubled down on the spying, pushing W10 without consent, and still in bed with NSA, so they are still out of consideration for me. A shame really. :(
  • mstromb 11y ago
    From what I'm reading it's the entirety of Ubuntu, including apt. Use bash once to apt-get install zsh and you're done.
    • mixmastamyk 11y ago
      Yep, they changed the title on me, and now that I've read several of the articles here, I see it is a whole/minimal ubuntu userland.
  • Scuds 11y ago
    there are improved 3rd party terminals for windows https://github.com/cbucher/console https://github.com/cbucher/console https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd315244.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd315244.aspx
• manojlds 11y ago
  Does this obviate msysgit?
• xaduha 11y ago
  I'd be more excited if they added support for NFS to every edition of Windows and fixed some quirks that is has. Bash alone isn't that useful, you'd need other stuff and you can already get that from other sources. There's also a distinction between a terminal program and shell. Bash is a shell. iTerm2 is a terminal program. Cmd.exe is both?
• Xorlev 11y ago
  Cool! The *nix/Windows ecosystems coming closer can only be a good thing. I've hesitated in getting a Surface Book since it'd always need a good network connection to support remote development, but this has the potential to change the game. I had always hoped this would happen when I was younger, and now it's finally here.
• lasermike026 11y ago
  Is Microsoft starting to get it?
• dhruvrrp 11y ago
  This might actually stop the exodus to OSX ive seen in the developer community. And I'm kind of surprised Microsoft did this since they seemed to be pushing for Powershell before the Windows 10 release.
  • joeyaiello 11y ago
    We'll be continuing to invest heavily in PowerShell going forward. Bash on Windows is awesome right now for developer scenarios, especially for folks coming from an OSX/Linux workflow.
• be5invis 11y ago
  I am curisous about can these ELF programs interop with win32 ones?
• zyngaro 11y ago
  Great. Now I may consider buying a PC again.
• SXX 11y ago
  rm -rf /* now on Windows
• betolink 11y ago
  Once upon a time Steve Ballmer said that GPL/Linux was cancer, it's odd to see his company spreading it =)
  • SXX 11y ago
    If you can't stop it...
    • mixmastamyk 11y ago
      If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
  • gibspaulding 11y ago
    Hopefully I'm just being paranoid, but as a full time Linux user Microsoft's friendliness makes me nervous. I think I liked it better when we were bitter enemies. Remember embrace, extend, extinguish...
• eanzenberg 11y ago
  ls c:\program/ /files\documents\recycle/ /bin\ ugh
  • SXX 11y ago
    According to the screenshot it's will be: ls /mnt/c/program\ files/documents/
    • anthk 11y ago
      ln -s /mnt/c/program\ files/ /mnt/c/sw
• sunsu 11y ago
  I'm assuming some of this was driven by Microsoft's desire to support the Docker ecosystem? Great move!
• rcarmo 11y ago
  FYI, http://aka.ms/uowterms http://aka.ms/uowterms points to Canonical's site. Pretty excited about this, given that I've been using Cygwin for ages and always found it a pain to hit those edge cases where it didn't work.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• dang 11y ago
  Not sure what the best URL is for this story, so we just picked the oldest active thread. We can change the URL if there's a significantly better one.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• Tistel 11y ago
  I think this is great. I live in emacs and a bit of bash. emacs on windows works, but, does not feel right. Everything is a little wonky (the path slash thing, the unix find and aspell tools etc). If this makes emacs feel like it does on linux native or mac, I will seriously consider buying a windows laptop. Well done new guy in charge of Microsoft!
  • lottin 11y ago
    It's true, I always have to install some bundle that includes R and LaTeX along with Emacs, otherwise it's a nightmare installing all the different programs individually and making them work together. But still for me the main problem of Emacs on Windows is that the fonts look blurry and horrible.
• wolfhumble 11y ago
  How does this _license wise_ play together with the GPL?
  • samuellb 11y ago
    It seems to be an implementation of a subset of the Linux kernel ABI (binary interface to applications) on top of the NT kernel. It's most likely written from scratch, similar to WINE or FreeBSD's Linux ABI, and in that case there shouldn't be any copyright issues.
• pmontra 11y ago
  This post has more details http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner... The interesting part is "Ubuntu will primarily run on a foundation of native Windows libraries." If this is true Canonical is playing with fire. That could be the embrace step of the usual embrace-extend-estinguish script. Think what happens when Microsoft adds some new functionality to those "native Windows libraries" and Ubuntu/Windows is extended to use it and Ubuntu/Linux obviously not. If (when?) the majority of Ubuntu's users will be on Windows Microsoft only needs to start developing its own Ubuntu and cut Canonical out of the loop. If there will be a significant amount of Ubuntu/Windows servers by then, very little will be left for Canonical. Only the cost of Windows licenses can save Canonical on the server. The desktop will be lost given that most of Ubuntu's desktops are born as Windows machines. The more convenient way will be to add Ubuntu/Windows to them and keep a Windows OS for games or just in case you need some Windows native application. Maybe Canonical is thinking about leaving the desktop and focusing on the server. Still it's a risky move. Another interesting post of October 2015 http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/ubuntu-conspiracy http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/ubuntu-conspiracy "The word is that Microsoft is in secret negotiations to purchase Canonical." Maybe they're playing the Elop move without having to change CEO.
  • JdeBP 11y ago
    > "Ubuntu will primarily run on a foundation of native Windows libraries." I think that you're predicating an entire argument on what was probably a bit of slipshod writing. After all, we know (now) that what this is is Linux binaries running on the Windows NT kernel, and that Microsoft hasn't actually done anything to those binaries at all (and indeed touted that as a feature). So Microsoft hasn't taken any steps to make Ubuntu softwares specific to the new Windows NT Linux subsystem. Nor has this even been positioned as an "Ubuntu on Windows server". Indeed, the Microsoft people promoting it have been stating (in all-capitals or boldface, no less) that it's for enhancing developer command-line workflows. It apparently doesn't even have the server capabilities (i.e. running programs as services) that even the old (Interix) Windows NT POSIX subsystem had. You're also discounting the other Ubuntu news of the month. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415985 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416376 .
• Osiris 11y ago
  I'm excited for native git on Windows. The current Git on Windows versions are damn slow.
• kchoudhu 11y ago
  The ability to use apt-get is what is truly intriguing. Will I be able to change the repositories that I face off against?
• tonyblundell 11y ago
  Cool! Linux with Viruses :-)
• phabian 11y ago
  This looks like a long-term plan to kill linux. The only way to kill linux is from inside out.
  • pritambaral 11y ago
    Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• iammyIP 11y ago
  Great News! For many people, this might make the full transition to a real Linux distribution much easier.
• Redoubts 11y ago
  Does this make the development story much more clear? I was always confused about the differences between msys, msys2 , mingw, cygwin, etc.
• tzs 11y ago
  How about GUI applications? I worked at a place that developed a "Linux on Windows" thingy back in the Windows XP days. It was essentially like WINE. A user-mode Windows program would load the Linux binary into the Windows program's address space and execute it, trapping any attempts by the Linux code to issue system calls, and the Windows program would then service those system calls. For non-GUI stuff this worked remarkably well. I was able to grab the binary for rpm off of my Red Hat system, and the then current Red Hat distribution disc, and install successfully almost all of the RPMs from the disc and have almost all of the non-GUI ones work. I had expected big problems from the case-insensivite vs. case-sensitive filesystem issue, but in practice there were only a handful of things that ran into this. Mostly Perl stuff that used both "makefile" and "Makefile". GUI stuff was another matter. We could run XFree86 under Cygwin, and then the Linux apps under our WINE-like program would work. However management was not keen on the idea of including Cygwin and XFree86 if we turned this thing into a project. Also, we wanted an X server that would fit in better with a mix of X and native Windows apps running at the same time. I spent a while trying to write a Windows X server straight from the official specifications. I got as far as being able to get xcalc to display a window and all the controls to show up right, but weird things happened with events. Everything looked fine when I packet sniffed the communication. I still had not figured this out by the time management decided that this whole thing did not have enough of a commercial market to continue the project.
  • bitcrazed 11y ago
    Want to make this absolutely clear - this is a command-line only toolset for developers. It is not built to support GUI desktops/apps. It is not built to run production Linux server workloads. It is not suitable for running micro-services or containerized environments. Again - this is A COMMAND-LINE-ONLY DEVELOPER TOOLSET!
    • gpvos 11y ago
      Any plans for it to become more than that?
  • NateDad 11y ago
    GUI applications not currently supported, and as far as I've seen, not intended to be supported (but who knows in the long term).
• digi_owl 11y ago
  Not surprised. Seems that as of late the biggest use of Ubuntu is as a container base. If there is one thing Microsoft has always delivered, it is strong developer tools. And this is another case, as developers now don't have to fiddle with a VM to get a Ubuntu test environment going before stuffing things into a container. Every embrace of Linux Microsoft has been doing as of late can be traced back to their Azure cloud service.
• snhkicker 11y ago
  I think this will be met VERY VERY badly by readers of this comment but this change as far as i understand is windows telling canonical to help them in taking their customers i live in egypt and other than containers and CLI and running it as webservers there is practically no way for anyone to even consider using linux i don't think this will end up well for linux i think windows attempts will take the webservers business from linux in 5 years or something which is probably 90% of it
  • digi_owl 11y ago
    Microsoft has their own cloud service, Azure. And Ubuntu's biggest "market" these days is not desktop, but as a container base. So this is MS getting cozy with Canonical to offer a development environment for Ubuntu based containers destined for Azure.
• waiseristy 11y ago
  Hah, nice little Emacs jab there "Of course, I have no idea how to CLOSE emacs, so I'll close the window. ;)"
• otterley 11y ago
  To clarify, it sounds like what Microsoft has added to Windows 10 is a Linux ABI. This has been done before with other x86 OSes: FreeBSD has had 32-bit ABI compatibility for at least a decade (https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/linuxemu.html https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/linuxemu.html), and the "lx branded zone" for Solaris also has 64-bit support (https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/817-1592/gchhy/index.html https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/817-1592/gchhy/index.ht...). It looks like Ubuntu was the first to package some Linux binaries for Windows. I guess that's useful?
  • fanf2 11y ago
    Linux ABI support was introduced in FreeBSD 2.1 released in 1995, 20 years ago.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• czk 11y ago
  well, I guess 2016 truly is the year of the linux desktop
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• chx 11y ago
  I am sick and tired of Linux hardware support. Looking at what I run on a Linux GUI, there's nothing which actually is Linux specific (right now I have Skype, Slack, Konversation, shutter, phpstorm, geany, Chrome and Firefox running). If I am able to run the Linux LAMP stack then I will be happy to ditch all the problems with battery life, video drivers and bluetooth and just use Windows. This stuff here is really big.
• analognoise 11y ago
  Embrace, extend, extinguish.
• mangeletti 11y ago
  Real question: why are users considered "hard core" just because they run bash commands from a CLI? It's such a strange though to me, the idea of being a sys admin and clicking around in a Windows computer... is that how it happens, or do most Windows admins use one of the CLI tools mentioned in the article?
  • mekoka 11y ago
    I think you're asking two questions. Why would sys admin use a cli? Think about it this way, what if instead of letters your keyboard came already attached with words you can use instead? That's the best analogy to the difference between the gui and the cli I can come up with. It's just 2 APIs, but the latter is generally more complete, faster and offers more control. As to why people are considered "hard core" when they use the cli, it must have to do with the (somewhat false) notion that one must have a special kind of mind to be able to remember all these commands. Most cli users know that they're not geniuses, they just had the patience to go through a tutorial or read parts of the manual. Then they repeatedly used a small set of commands that they need almost daily and that stuck to long term (or muscle) memory. Over time they took some notes when they encountered handy but seldom used commands. They've done this for many many years with many many tools. Look over their shoulders as their little fingers do their thing and mistake their craft for wizardry.
  • PatentTroll 11y ago
    GUIs can be useful too? I don't know why that's so hard to believe.
• santiagobasulto 11y ago
  "According to sources at Canonical, Ubuntu Linux's parent company, and Microsoft, you'll soon be able to run Ubuntu on Windows 10." I'm not a native english speaker, but that seems like a poorly phrased sentence, isn't it? (I'm currently reading "Eats, shoots and leaves")
• gketuma 11y ago
  This will make me drop my MBP for the Surface Book.
• pen2l 11y ago
  I'm on Win8, haven't updated to Windows 10. Will this /only/ work on Win10? I really don't want to update -- but will update if it's the only way.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• quotemstr 11y ago
  Oh, another subsystem. Yay, good for Microsoft. The problem with the subsystem approach is that it's hard to get programs running in the subsystem to interact with the desktop world, which is win32. What I like about Cygwin is that the programs that run under it are win32 programs: they can equally well use CreateWindow and ppoll. Cygwin programs understand NT permissions. It's always been possible to run Linux programs under Windows: just run a VM. What Microsoft has done here makes it less painful to run Linux programs, sure, but these programs still exist in their own little world. Cygwin programs, on the other hand, are Windows programs. To me, that makes them much more useful. Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the new Linux subsystem is more tightly integrated with the rest of the system than I'm guessing. But based on the available documentation, it looks a lot more like SFU or Interix than it does Cygwin, and that's a shame, because if I'm right, Microsoft misunderstood the whole point of Cygwin. Again.
  • rizalp 11y ago
    In my perspective, this Linux subsystem are very useful for running server components like redis, or nginx which doesn't have official windows build. So you can develop server apps which will run on Linux prod, but develop it with Windows
    • quotemstr 11y ago
      Unless I can fire up windbg and point them at these binaries (which would involve teaching dbghelp to read DWARF, and be useful in its own right), I still don't see much of a point. I can always just use a lightweight VM, and paravirtualized cross-VM filesystem access already exists.
      • JdeBP 11y ago
        You're rather presuming that one would use windbg. That's an unwarranted assumption, given that the hypothetical developer here who is developing server apps using redis and nginx "with Windows, for Linux prod" is likely to think of gdb as the debugger. Of course, whether gdb would work is something that we haven't yet been shown.
• quotemstr 11y ago
  All I wanted was a win32-subsystem COW fork. NT already had a COW fork. It always has. All you needed to do was wire up that fork to win32. Instead, you did some other random, much less valuable thing.
• leonardinius 11y ago
  Genuinely interested: will I be (in near future) run Linux native docker on Windows?
• bcantrill 11y ago
  Exciting stuff! This is (very?) similar what with LX branded zones in SmartOS[1][2] -- and, as I've said before[3] -- we want as many other systems as possible take this approach. That said, we also know how long a haul this is, and how detail-intensive it is. So I've got a bunch of questions. ;) First, is the source available? Second, how much of the One Hundred Language Quine Relay[4] runs successfully? (For us, running that sucker to completion was an important early milestone.) Assuming that runs, my next questions are all common apps/programs that we knew to be especially thorny for one reason or another: Go, strace, tcpdump, systemd, etc. Anyway, it's great to see the SmartOS approach so broadly validated by Microsoft -- and hope that they both finish the job and open source it all! [1] http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx http://www.slideshare.net/bcantrill/illumos-lx [2] http://us-east.manta.joyent.com/patrick.mooney/public/talks/surge2015-lx.pdf http://us-east.manta.joyent.com/patrick.mooney/public/talks/... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XQUciI-Sc#t=1h7m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XQUciI-Sc#t=1h7m15s [4] https://github.com/mame/quine-relay https://github.com/mame/quine-relay
  • bradfitz 11y ago
    The linked slides say: "Problem for software unenlightened by ABI (golang)" I know they're not your slides, but do you also think Go is unenlightened (which reads: clueless and unaware) or do you think perhaps it consciously rejected the common ABIs?
    • bcantrill 11y ago
      I've never gotten a straight answer as to why Go makes system calls directly instead of doing what every other program on the planet does and calling into the system libraries. Certainly, it made the ports to non-Linux systems absolutely brutal: systems are required to make themselves look like Linux for Go to function correctly. So yes, this is unenlightened -- or perhaps it's a conscious attempt to make Go unportable?
• ENTP 11y ago
  Sounds like this is an experiment to me - the first step towards a hybrid OS. Do they want to try and eat into the OSX/development stack in an effort to make windows relevant to that market? Or is there a bigger picture here where they eventually want to blur the lines between linux and windows? Perhaps they will "pull an android" on the patent front but have a free alternative that you can use. I guess I've been around too long and seen too much.
  • JdeBP 11y ago
    It's not really an experiment. Or if it is, it was one that was performed in 1988. Windows NT has from the start been designed to have this, multiple operating system "personalities" layered as "subsystems" over a single kernel. As someone who has been around long and seen much, you should recall the OS/2 1.x subsystem aimed at pulling in the OS/2 1.x market, the "NT Virtual DOS Machines" aimed at pulling in the DOS market, the (original) POSIX subsystem that people characterized as little more than marketing checkboxery, and so forth. Gradually all of the subsystems, and processor architectures, fell by the wayside. The excitement for some is less that this is some fundamental architectural change in Windows NT. It isn't. It's that this is the first new thing in (desktop/laptop/server) Windows NT for a while that isn't "The customer can have any subsystem and processor architecture that he wants, as long as it is WinNN and Intel/AMD.". It would be good to see the Interix subsystem come back, too. And maybe a second processor architecture, as well. (-:
• tweevijftig 11y ago
  The question is: Does the date command work?
• petecox 11y ago
  Will this work on Windows Phone? It would seem like this compatibility layer goes some of the way to running Android apps on WP10. But it might be handy to have a GNU/Linux distro in your pocket, coupled with Continuum, running inside a chroot. (sure there's debian chroots on Android. There's Ubuntu Touch but I've never seen a retail handset, whereas Lumias do exist.)
• hobarrera 11y ago
  I know I'm being picky, but there's NO Linux here. Linux is the kernel, and the kernel is THE piece they're not including. So rather than repeating "Linux on windows", this is "Ubuntu's userland on windows", or "GNU on windows", or any other variation, but NOT "Linux".
  • JdeBP 11y ago
    In fairness: the Windows NT OS/2 subsystem doesn't have the OS/2 kernel, the "NT Virtual DOS Machine" doesn't have a vanilla DOS kernel, and there's no Unix kernel in Windows Services for Unix. So they're all named after the thing that isn't really there, and that the Windows NT kernel substitutes for. Furthermore, only some of the (free) software bundled up as Ubuntu is "GNU". Being copylefted doesn't by itself make something part of the GNU Project. * https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#allgnupkgs https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#allgnupkgs The annoying thing was the Microsoft video where twice Rich Turner of Microsoft stopped Russ Alexander to clarify what was happening and gave incorrect clarifications of how things were "running on Linux ... on Windows". They patently are not "running on Linux". Microsoft has been quite happy to say over all these years that OS/2 1.x programs were "running on Windows" and DOS programs were "running on Windows" and Win16 programs were "running on Windows" and even Win32 programs were "running on Windows", M. Turner. This is just plain "Linux programs running on Windows". There is no need to make it confusing when it actually isn't. (-:
• JdeBP 11y ago
  A lot has been written, in this and the other major Hacker News discussion, about Microsoft. Very little has been written about Canonical. Another ZDNet news piece (http://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-not-linux-on-windows-how-it-works/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-not-linux-on-windows-how...) quotes in part a Mark Shuttleworth press statement that is on the Ubuntu WWW site in full (http://partners.ubuntu.com/microsoft http://partners.ubuntu.com/microsoft). Another thing that no-one has mentioned at all is how this pairs up with UbuntuBSD. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11326457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11326457 Michael Hall of Canonical is quoted elsewhere (http://www.cio.com/article/3046588/open-source-tools/ubuntubsd-helps-users-escape-systemd.html http://www.cio.com/article/3046588/open-source-tools/ubuntub...) saying that > I think it's a cool project and I'm looking forward to seeing how far they get with it. It would certainly be an interesting addition to our already varied list of official flavors, if they can get there. If one has Ubuntu binaries, one can now run them directly on top of 3 operating system kernels: * On the FreeBSD kernel, with UbuntuBSD. * On the Linux kernel, with Ubuntu Linux. * On the Windows NT kernel, with this new Windows NT Linux subsystem. So whilst RedHat is busy pushing systemd, and the systemd people are busy pushing a convergence of all Linux distributions into systemd operating systems that do a whole lot of things in the same single way, Ubuntu is apparently taking on Debian's "universal operating system" mantle and extending it to places where even Debian is not. Everyone is focussing on Microsoft. It's important to remember the "and Canonical".
  • digi_owl 11y ago
    I think everyone is focusing on Microsoft because MS is the big dog in all this. And their history is one of appearing to embracing something, and then introducing less and less subtle differences once they have the majority share. Also known as Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. So it may well be that Canonical have a short term win here, but that in the longer term MS will sideline Canonical as the major share of developers have adopted "MS Ubuntu".
  • JdeBP 11y ago
    And going by Canonical's marketing only a few days later, its ubiquity is what they are pushing. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11464703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11464703