3 ms·
>Isn't a VM a better option? Please explain how it is better. They've implemented the ABI/syscalls in the kernel allowing for direct execution of unmodified E
by ksk 10y ago
>Isn't a VM a better option?
Please explain how it is better.
They've implemented the ABI/syscalls in the kernel allowing for direct execution of unmodified ELF64 binaries.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bluejekyll 10y agoIf you're going for a full Linux/GNU/Ubuntu/Unity stack, the only thing this cuts out is Linux, making his a Windows/GNU/Ubuntu/Unity stack. I know they've replicated the system calls, but they won't perform or always operate identically to a Linux kernel. Which is why I asked about where people thought Unity on Windows would make sense. Because a VM will most likely generally give a better experience. If you restrict yourself to bash and standard Unix tools, you'll end up with a similar experience to macOS and terminal (or my preference iTerm2)
- ksk 10y ago> but they won't perform or always operate identically to a Linux kernel. Why does the implementation have to be identical? How would that even be possible, unless they violate the GPL. I don't get your point. > Because a VM will most likely generally give a better experience. Again, please explain WHY it would give a better experience. What do you see lacking?