←back to thread

535 points raddad | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hobs ◴[] 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 #
legohead ◴[] No.11390748[source]
It sounds cool, but even though his remarks are clear, I'm still confused!

I got a Mac primarily because of its linux side, but it is actually Linux.

This is still Windows, but with a Linux "side" to it? If I apt-get install redis, do I make it startup like I would in linux, or do I use windows services? In the screenshot there's a /mnt directory, is that behaving the same as it does in linux?

This is so confusing... but if it's legit, then I would actually look at switching back to windows.

replies(5): >>11390767 #>>11390775 #>>11390782 #>>11390784 #>>11390800 #
Delmania ◴[] No.11390784[source]
> I got a Mac primarily because of its linux side, but it is actually Linux.

No, it's not. OSX is literally UNIX. OSX is based off Darwin, which is based off BSD.

replies(2): >>11391167 #>>11391847 #
1. soapdog ◴[] No.11391847[source]
When I look at it, I basically see NeXTSTEP which is UNIX... I see a lot of OS X is BSD, or, OS X is Darwin + BSD, all I see is NeXTSTEP with a worse interface...
replies(2): >>11392596 #>>11395202 #
2. Delmania ◴[] No.11392596[source]
When I say OX is literally UNIX, the emphasis is on the word 'literally'. To be classified as a UNIX system, meaning that an OS maker can use the UNIX trademark, the system have to be certified by the The Open Group.

BSD was UNIX, yet neither of it's 2 prevalent derivatives (FreeBSD and OpenBSD) has applied for certification. They are classified as Unix-like; the same is true for any Linux distribution.

To some people, this may be semantics, but one of the reasons that drew me to OSX was the certification.

replies(2): >>11395197 #>>11397332 #
3. umanwizard ◴[] No.11395197[source]
What appeals to you about the certification? Are there ways in which OS X behaves in a "more standard" way than FreeBSD ?
4. umanwizard ◴[] No.11395202[source]
Almost all of the userland command-line tools are from BSD. The most important exception is clang which is independent (though Apple has historically been the biggest contributor).

Also, large parts of the kernel are from BSD.

5. soapdog ◴[] No.11397332[source]
yes, I got the reference. I was talking about personal impressions, I was not clear about it though, sorry. I still remember when they (Apple) run an ad showing a powerbook running Mac OS X saying "Send other UNIX to /dev/null", how excited I was at the time :-P