Most active commenters
  • jhall1468(3)
  • bitwize(3)

←back to thread

Microsoft and Canonical partner to bring Ubuntu to Windows 10

(www.zdnet.com)
535 points raddad | 11 comments | 30 Mar 16 11:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.605s | source | bottom
Show context
hobs ◴[30 Mar 16 16:36 UTC] No.11390553[source]▶
Some additional details from Scott Hanselman:

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. "

replies(11): >>11390574 #>>11390626 #>>11390693 #>>11390705 #>>11390731 #>>11390748 #>>11390890 #>>11391364 #>>11392443 #>>11393237 #>>11402098 #
bitwize ◴[30 Mar 16 17:48 UTC] No.11391364[source]▶
No. It may be Ubuntu, but it's not Linux. It isn't Linux, anymore than running a Linux userland on NetBSD's Linux "kernel personality" is Linux.
replies(1): >>11391763 #
1. jhall1468 ◴[30 Mar 16 18:32 UTC] No.11391763[source]▶
That's being pedantic, honestly. Yes, technically Linux is only the kernel and technically running the Ubuntu run-time on a different kernel isn't running Linux.

However, "Linux" is almost always a reference to GNU tools and the Linux Kernel. It may not be semantically accurate, but take that up with the same people that made literally mean both itself and its opposite.

replies(3): >>11391848 #>>11391927 #>>11392395 #
2. bitwize ◴[30 Mar 16 18:45 UTC] No.11391848[source]▶
That's being pedantic, honestly.

Let's try the opposite. Say someone got Wine working to the point where it was very nearly, perfectly indistiguishable from Windows and they put up a blog post saying "Everything works just as it should under Windows, because it is Windows." Microsoft's lawyers would come around with a C&D, and calling them pedants wouldn't invalidate their case.

He could have said "it's just like Linux, right down to the kernel interface" or "Everything works just like Ubuntu, because the userland is Ubuntu". Succinct and correct. Precision matters.

replies(2): >>11391931 #>>11392813 #
3. fucking_tragedy ◴[30 Mar 16 18:54 UTC] No.11391927[source]▶
Android is Linux, but doesn't have your traditional GNU or minimal busybox userland that you'd expect.

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is Debian, but it isn't Linux.

Mac OS X with GNU tools via MacPorts/Fink/Homebrew is OS X with a GNU userland, but it isn't Linux.

Windows 10 with an Ubuntu userland is Ubuntu, but it isn't Linux.

Linux is a kernel.

replies(1): >>11392830 #
4. bitcrazed ◴[30 Mar 16 18:54 UTC] No.11391931[source]▶
Your points are fair, but color with the fact that the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) is build to be distro-agnostic. We picked Ubuntu in this first version due to its popularity with developers, but there are few technical reasons (other than us fully and accurately implementing the necessary syscalls) why it shouldn't support other distro's userland environments in the future.

Knowing this, what should we call it?

Windows Subsystem for Running POSIX + Linux Syscall API Compatible Userland Tools? WSRPLSACUMT? :)

I'm genuinely interested on what you all feel would be a good way to think about naming moving forward.

replies(2): >>11392070 #>>11417629 #
5. bitwize ◴[30 Mar 16 19:11 UTC] No.11392070{3}[source]▶
There's nothing wrong with "Windows Subsystem for Linux".

But there's a difference between "This is Ubuntu running on WSL" or "This is Ubuntu running on our Linux compatibility layer", and "This is Linux".

6. Joeboy ◴[30 Mar 16 19:52 UTC] No.11392395[source]▶
Can somebody tell me straightforwardly whether a linux kernel is actually involved in this WinBuntu thing or not?
replies(1): >>11392406 #
7. johnmaguire2013 ◴[30 Mar 16 19:54 UTC] No.11392406[source]▶
No, it is not.

> A team of sharp developers at Microsoft has been hard at work adapting some Microsoft research technology to basically perform real time translation of Linux syscalls into Windows OS syscalls. Linux geeks can think of it sort of the inverse of "wine" -- Ubuntu binaries running natively in Windows.

http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.htm...

8. jhall1468 ◴[30 Mar 16 20:40 UTC] No.11392813[source]▶
> Let's try the opposite. Say someone got Wine working to the point where it was very nearly, perfectly indistiguishable from Windows and they put up a blog post saying "Everything works just as it should under Windows, because it is Windows." Microsoft's lawyers would come around with a C&D, and calling them pedants wouldn't invalidate their case.

Except that isn't the opposite, it's an entirely different situation.

1) It isn't Windows. It's a complete rewrite of the Windows API's. That is not the same thing that's happening here.

2) A C&D isn't a case, it's a piece of paper (politely) asking you to do something. Calling something Windows and it actually being an infringement on Windows patents are entirely different issues.

> Precision matters.

In carefully crafted theoretical situations feigning as analogies to this situation? Sure. In the real world? Hardly.

9. jhall1468 ◴[30 Mar 16 20:42 UTC] No.11392830[source]▶
Thank you for proving my point on being pedantic.
replies(1): >>11416040 #
10. JdeBP ◴[03 Apr 16 13:32 UTC] No.11416040{3}[source]▶
Xe appears to have proven the opposite of your point, if anything.
11. JdeBP ◴[03 Apr 16 20:51 UTC] No.11417629{3}[source]▶
> I'm genuinely interested on what you all feel would be a good way to think about naming moving forward.

I did actually give this some thought, for what it's worth. There are problems with "GNU" in the name and problems with "Ubuntu" in the name.

But it seems to me that Microsoft has a naming scheme that it is perhaps unaware of. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11417059 . (-: