←back to thread

Ubuntu on Windows

(blog.dustinkirkland.com)
2049 points bpierre | 1 comments | 30 Mar 16 16:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
zymhan ◴[30 Mar 16 17:09 UTC] No.11390932[source]▶
"Linux geeks can think of it sort of the inverse of "wine" -- Ubuntu binaries running natively in Windows. Microsoft calls it their "Windows Subsystem for Linux"."

I find it amazing that you can have such a functional Ubuntu environment by translating system calls. Microsoft does have the advantage of Linux being open-source I suppose, while the Wine project had to reverse engineer DLLs. Or have you supply them on your own.

replies(9): >>11391001 #>>11391011 #>>11391074 #>>11391084 #>>11391105 #>>11391166 #>>11391290 #>>11391798 #>>11391866 #
anonymfus ◴[30 Mar 16 17:24 UTC] No.11391084[source]▶
>Microsoft does have the advantage of Linux being open-source

More correctly would be to say that Microsoft has advantage of user space libraries used in GNU/Linux distributions being open-source. Linux kernel itself being GPL2 is probably a problem for Microsoft's developers because of possibility to be accidentally exposed to it while researching documentation.

replies(1): >>11391115 #
digi_owl ◴[30 Mar 16 17:27 UTC] No.11391115[source]▶
Thats why you do it clean room style.

One team to document, one team to implement based on that document.

replies(1): >>11391497 #
vram22 ◴[30 Mar 16 18:01 UTC] No.11391497[source]▶
What does "clean room" style mean, exactly? I've heard the term, but only in connection with semiconductor factories, I think. You're talking about software here.
replies(3): >>11391647 #>>11391686 #>>11391715 #
1. soapdog ◴[30 Mar 16 18:28 UTC] No.11391715[source]▶
means a group check the source and documents. Another group never sees the code, only the documentation, and proceed to implement whatever they need being able to say that they have not used the original code.

This is common in reverse engineering stuff.