5 ms·

wait wait wait, will I have access to the whole repositories of ubuntu via apt-get or just to a windows repository made on purpose? In any way, for me, this is

by yulaow 11y ago

wait wait wait, will I have access to the whole repositories of ubuntu via apt-get or just to a windows repository made on purpose? In any way, for me, this is a great news. The fact was really hard to work with python/ruby/node/etc under windows and the fact I hate powershell were the two main things about why I work on a linux os all the time.

TheOsiris 11y ago
Exactly. I mean did we really just jump straight from the worst shell in history (the windows command prompt) to one that supports tmux? However, I don't know if this is the case. I remember in the livestream Meyers saying that they will enable you to choose any shell you want "powershell, dos, bash, and more coming soon". If they just supported _any_ ubuntu binary natively, I don't know why he would've said "more coming soon"
- signal11 11y ago
  screen and tmux don't appear to be supported yet due to issues with terminal emulation. But they're working on it.
  - T-A 11y ago
    With some luck they'll work with Conemu. BTW, it's 3-clause BSD, so you can peek, Microsoft. :) https://github.com/Maximus5/ConEmu https://github.com/Maximus5/ConEmu
- PatentTroll 11y ago
  Windows has had powershell for a while, and there is a good argument that its better than the *nix shell because it supports strongly typed objects. Many will disagree, of course, but keep in mind that cmd.exe hasn't been the windows shell of choice for many years now.
jonathonf 11y ago
> will I have access to the whole repositories of ubuntu via apt-get Yes; full, standard, repo access [1]. > With full access to all of Ubuntu user space > Yes, that means apt, ssh, rsync, find, grep, awk, sed, sort, xargs, md5sum, gpg, curl, wget, apache, mysql, python, perl, ruby, php, gcc, tar, vim, emacs, diff, patch... > And most of the tens of thousands binary packages available in the Ubuntu archives! [1] http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.html?m=1 http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.htm...
NetStrikeForce 11y ago
I've never met anyone that tried to do some scripting with PowerShell and didn't fall in love with it, that's why I find it difficult to believe that you hate it. Or that you tried it. You might hate the terminal where PowerShell runs, but I don't think you hate Powershell. I see a future where devs move to Windows due to Bash and stay due to PowerShell.
- illumin8 11y ago
  I've done some terrible, terrible automation using PowerShell and PS Remoting across dozens of Windows servers, and wanted to smash my screen on multiple occasions. First, PS Remoting is terrible compared to SSH. Commands fail randomly on a small percentage of systems, and the only options to troubleshoot are to login manually to the remote system, and try a number of things, including rebooting the remote system (not very good for servers). Second, debugging is terrible compared to bash - sure PowerShell ISE allows you to step through your code line by line, however, I don't have anything like "bash -x script.sh" which lets me see the actual execution and return code of every line of my scripts. Third, bash has a much simpler way to chain output through multiple programs using pipes and treating input/output as simple text. PowerShell is a pseudo programming language with objects and other data types that just don't enable this type of chaining in the same simple and easily understandable way. It took me weeks to write a PowerShell script that used PS Remoting to loop through a list of provided servers, install a service, set the RunAs user, start the service, create a secret file, and EFS encrypt that file as a specific user. I could have written the same script in hours using bash for Linux boxes. It would have been much more efficient by using tools like GNU parallel. I'm not sure how anyone that's used both PowerShell and bash for any serious work could say PowerShell is better, unless they're a .NET developer and appreciate being able to blend .NET objects into their scripts, but to me, that just breaks the simple modular composability of the *nix philosphy.
  - NetStrikeForce 11y ago
    We might have very different use cases I guess. I script a lot to work with data, not to automate things. I feel very comfortable getting a stream of data and treating it with sed, awk, grep and whatever; but once I worked with objects it feels much more data-oriented. And please don't get me wrong, I've been in love with Bash since a Slackware CD fell on my hands in the 90s. I just was mind-blown by PS after making fun of it for years - just because the default terminal where it runs is less than great. I guess this thread proves the point of bringing Bash to Windows: Different people, different uses, different needs and solution. And that makes me happy :)

by yulaow 11y ago

TheOsiris 11y ago

Exactly. I mean did we really just jump straight from the worst shell in history (the windows command prompt) to one that supports tmux? However, I don't know if this is the case. I remember in the livestream Meyers saying that they will enable you to choose any shell you want "powershell, dos, bash, and more coming soon". If they just supported _any_ ubuntu binary natively, I don't know why he would've said "more coming soon"

signal11 11y ago
screen and tmux don't appear to be supported yet due to issues with terminal emulation. But they're working on it.
- T-A 11y ago
  With some luck they'll work with Conemu. BTW, it's 3-clause BSD, so you can peek, Microsoft. :) https://github.com/Maximus5/ConEmu https://github.com/Maximus5/ConEmu
PatentTroll 11y ago
Windows has had powershell for a while, and there is a good argument that its better than the *nix shell because it supports strongly typed objects. Many will disagree, of course, but keep in mind that cmd.exe hasn't been the windows shell of choice for many years now.

jonathonf 11y ago

> will I have access to the whole repositories of ubuntu via apt-get Yes; full, standard, repo access [1]. > With full access to all of Ubuntu user space > Yes, that means apt, ssh, rsync, find, grep, awk, sed, sort, xargs, md5sum, gpg, curl, wget, apache, mysql, python, perl, ruby, php, gcc, tar, vim, emacs, diff, patch... > And most of the tens of thousands binary packages available in the Ubuntu archives! [1] http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.html?m=1 http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.htm...

NetStrikeForce 11y ago

I've never met anyone that tried to do some scripting with PowerShell and didn't fall in love with it, that's why I find it difficult to believe that you hate it. Or that you tried it. You might hate the terminal where PowerShell runs, but I don't think you hate Powershell. I see a future where devs move to Windows due to Bash and stay due to PowerShell.

illumin8 11y ago
I've done some terrible, terrible automation using PowerShell and PS Remoting across dozens of Windows servers, and wanted to smash my screen on multiple occasions. First, PS Remoting is terrible compared to SSH. Commands fail randomly on a small percentage of systems, and the only options to troubleshoot are to login manually to the remote system, and try a number of things, including rebooting the remote system (not very good for servers). Second, debugging is terrible compared to bash - sure PowerShell ISE allows you to step through your code line by line, however, I don't have anything like "bash -x script.sh" which lets me see the actual execution and return code of every line of my scripts. Third, bash has a much simpler way to chain output through multiple programs using pipes and treating input/output as simple text. PowerShell is a pseudo programming language with objects and other data types that just don't enable this type of chaining in the same simple and easily understandable way. It took me weeks to write a PowerShell script that used PS Remoting to loop through a list of provided servers, install a service, set the RunAs user, start the service, create a secret file, and EFS encrypt that file as a specific user. I could have written the same script in hours using bash for Linux boxes. It would have been much more efficient by using tools like GNU parallel. I'm not sure how anyone that's used both PowerShell and bash for any serious work could say PowerShell is better, unless they're a .NET developer and appreciate being able to blend .NET objects into their scripts, but to me, that just breaks the simple modular composability of the *nix philosphy.
- NetStrikeForce 11y ago
  We might have very different use cases I guess. I script a lot to work with data, not to automate things. I feel very comfortable getting a stream of data and treating it with sed, awk, grep and whatever; but once I worked with objects it feels much more data-oriented. And please don't get me wrong, I've been in love with Bash since a Slackware CD fell on my hands in the 90s. I just was mind-blown by PS after making fun of it for years - just because the default terminal where it runs is less than great. I guess this thread proves the point of bringing Bash to Windows: Different people, different uses, different needs and solution. And that makes me happy :)