Ubuntu 16.04 Available in Latest Insider Update To Windows 10 (omgubuntu.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu 16.04 Available in Latest Insider Update To Windows 10 (omgubuntu.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on Monday October 3, 2016 @07:20AM from the choice-is-yours dept.

The latest Windows 10 Insider preview -- build 14936 -- features Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. When a user enables the 'Bash on Ubuntu on Windows' feature for the first time, OMGUbuntu reports, Windows 10 now installs an Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus) image instead of Ubuntu 14.04 (Trusty Tahr). From the report: The updated version of Ubuntu in the WSL only affects new instances, i.e., those created by running lxrun.exe /install or on the very first run of the bash.exe setup. It is possible to upgrade WSL instances from Ubuntu 14.04 to Ubuntu 16.04 manually by running the do-release-upgrade command. Other changes in the WSL in Build 14936 include support for chroot system call, epoll support for /dev/null and the ability for bash -c to redirect to a file.

127 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

systemd? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 07:22 · Score: -1

Systemd? No thanks!
1. Re:systemd? by unixisc · 2016-10-03 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Does this mean we now have Windows 10 w/ systemd?
2. Re:systemd? by unixisc · 2016-10-03 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Curious about one thing - what is rms and FSF's official position on systemd?
3. Re:systemd? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, Windows 10 provides the spyware platform for GNU/systemd to run on. If only they could combine that dynamic duo with Windows 8's UI, the most advanced OS would be ready.
4. Re: systemd? by iggymanz · 2016-10-03 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  And Bill Gates?
5. Re:systemd? by Eunuchswear · 2016-10-04 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Whatever floats your boat"?
  Why would you expect them to have an "official position". It's free software. Use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want to.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
6. Re:systemd? by exomondo · 2016-10-04 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Curious about one thing - what is rms and FSF's official position on systemd?
  It's free software, it meets their definition and offers users what they define as the essential freedoms so they're just fine with it. Is there something about systemd that would make you think they would have a different position?
The Year Of Linux On Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 07:25 · Score: 0

or something
1. Re:The Year Of Linux On Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  It is the tower of OSes on desktop. They probably wanted to imitate that feeling having stacks of floppies and cardboard software packages over the corners of the IT or developer desk.
And now, by invictusvoyd · 2016-10-03 07:28 · Score: 1

The horse can ride man ! .
Yikes by RandomSurfer314 · 2016-10-03 07:31 · Score: 1

Ubuntu in Windows 10.... ugh
Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 07:31 · Score: 1

Don't want.
why just why by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 07:32 · Score: 0

Either run a real VM, or dual boot, or ... anything other than a broken cygwin-like substance that only now has things like chroot?
Just use a real operating system for chrissake.
1. Re:why just why by mccalli · 2016-10-03 07:42 · Score: 2
  
  Because I want to use grep. Because I want to run scripts and write them in Bash. Because I like the find command. Because...
  
  You get the idea. I run OS X^H^H^HmacOS as my main operating system and use the shell frequently. I used Red Hat as my desk top in the late 90s and early 2000s. I like the idea that my knowledge and familiarity is portable across all the environments I may come across.
2. Re:why just why by mlts · 2016-10-03 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  I also use Git for storing documents. If ransomware comes a-knocking and trashes my files, a reinstall, reload of apps, and a git clone gets all my data back. Having a native command line for that, as well as for using a deduplicating backup program like borg backup, attic, or others, is quite nice to have.
3. Re:why just why by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-03 07:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's not cygwin-like. Cygwin tries to translate Unix calls to Windows calls, and provides a DLL to link your source code against. WSL actually provides an ELF loader and handles Linux system calls; it runs Linux programs the way a Linux kernel would, albeit the kernel is more of an academic project written from scratch (e.g. FreeBSD or Minix implementing Linux-compatible system calls so as to straight run a Linux userland).
  WSL is excellent for those of us in an actual Windows enterprise environment doing Linux system development or administration. It gives a real Unix-like environment with real tools, rather than Cygwin. In general, it's kind of clunky and unpolished; but it's better than Cygwin.
  I'd like to see Microsoft release a Winbind-type service that connects (via TCP) to localhost and mediates between the Winbind socket and the local authentication daemon. Otherwise you have to join your computer *and* the Bash shell on your computer to the domain. Would also like to see them implement Docker under WSL tbh.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
4. Re:why just why by Gr8Apes · 2016-10-03 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  I also use Git for storing documents.
  
  And yet git is poor for binaries.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
5. Re:why just why by CastrTroy · 2016-10-03 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  Seems to me you would just be better off running Linux in a virtual machine. I've tried this Linux on Windows stuff, and there was quite a bit of basic stuff that didn't work. It's definitely not production ready yet. Even if it was production ready, what would this provide that running a virtual machine would not provide?
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
6. Re:why just why by Nunya666 · 2016-10-03 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  Because I want to use grep. Because I want to run scripts and write them in Bash. Because I like the find command. Because... You get the idea. I run OS X^H^H^HmacOS as my main operating system and use the shell frequently. I used Red Hat as my desk top in the late 90s and early 2000s. I like the idea that my knowledge and familiarity is portable across all the environments I may come across.
  Most of those individual commands have been available in Windoze for a long time. Try installing UnxUtils or GnuWin32 to get grep and other *Nix commands in Windows.
7. Re:why just why by tlhIngan · 2016-10-03 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I also use Git for storing documents.
  And yet git is poor for binaries.
  Not really. Git doesn't treat binaries any different from text. In fact, in an uncompressed repo, both are stored entirely as a whole - unlike RCS/CVS/SVN, each version is not stored as a diff of another version (either store the latest and maintain diffs of previous versions, or store the initial and maintain diffs going forward. The data model of Git stores everything as-is.
  Later versions of git stored the repository as a giant tarball which means text docs have a compressability advantage
8. Re:why just why by julian67 · 2016-10-03 08:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "...WSL actually provides an ELF loader and handles Linux system calls; it runs Linux programs the way a Linux kernel would..."
  Lots of people seem to miss this point. And a huge benefit of this is that performance is excellent. Running my ffmpeg bash scripts for x264 encoding/conversion I get identical speed in Ubuntu on Windows as I get on Debian Stretch on the same hardware. And it's great to be able to run screen or tmux locally, not just on a remote machine I ssh'd into. This is much better than using putty or running a VM.
  I boot Windows 10 most days because my Steam games mostly don't run on Steam for Linux and gaming under Wine is just too unreliable in many cases. If I don't have to reboot to accomplish some regular tasks than that's a bonus for me.
9. Re:why just why by Megol · 2016-10-03 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  Better performance, lower overheads, better integration between Windows and Ubuntu etc.
10. Re:why just why by Gr8Apes · 2016-10-03 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why it is poor for storing binaries, especially binaries that change often. You get a whole binary for a 1-bit change.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
11. Re:why just why by batkiwi · 2016-10-03 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  My belief is that the 99% use case of this is for running docker images.
  Before this you could run docker on windows, but you had to create a "bizarre" tiny linux distro VM (100mb or so storage), and the docker on windows launcher would leverage that to provision and run the docker images. You had to dedicate ram to that VM to run your docker pool.
  With this you can run docker images "natively", without a separate VM memory space, and due to the elf loader support they actually are running on windows itself.
  I do not see this as a good alternative to traditional VMs.
12. Re:why just why by h33t+l4x0r · 2016-10-03 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  I was excited about this at first but then after spending a day or two getting my environment the way I like it, the Windows part crashes and I have to re-install everything. So now I'm back to Cygwin and VMs, neither of which ever give me any trouble. Maybe I'll try it again in a few years when they work out the bugs.
13. Re:why just why by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  "I boot Windows 10 most days because my Steam games mostly don't run on Steam for Linux and gaming under Wine is just too unreliable in many cases."
  And that's whose fault again?
  "If I don't have to reboot to accomplish some regular tasks than that's a bonus for me."
  Well which company is most known for their software's reboots? Is playing games some of your regular tasks? Whether it is or isn't, please consider why DirectX continues to remain proprietary. If M$ really wants to reach out to *nix users, they should open source current and future DirectX releases.
14. Re:why just why by julian67 · 2016-10-03 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  "And that's whose fault again?"
  It's the fault of condescending pricks. Like you for instance.
  ttfn.
15. Re:why just why by Megol · 2016-10-04 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds weird - a crash shouldn't do that?
16. Re:why just why by h33t+l4x0r · 2016-10-04 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it was this weird thing where the console wouldn't launch anymore and I couldn't find any recommendation other than to remove the app and reinstall it - which worked by the way, but all my customization went bye-bye. It had something to do with me trying to get the scrollback buffer working proper. Anyway, like I said, too much effort for me to go through again. Maybe in a couple years.
17. Re:why just why by Eunuchswear · 2016-10-04 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Running my ffmpeg bash scripts for x264 encoding/conversion I get identical speed in Ubuntu on Windows as I get on Debian Stretch on the same hardware.
  Duh. Running a task that only uses CPU gets the same speed. Frankly, if you don't get the same speed from a VM your VM software is broken. Only I/O bound tasks should show any reduction in speed from running in a VM.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
18. Re:why just why by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-04 01:43 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong. IO-bound tasks are slow in VM because IO requires a kernel call. So does task switching, memory mapping (mmap(), brk()), getting the time, getting process information, changing memory protections, advising on memory use (madvise()), sleeping, interprocess communication (pipes), creating shared memory, and several other things. Modern VMs are faster because they eliminate the large amount of work required to make a kernel call.
  CPU-bound tasks can lose clock cycles to task switching and context switches. Task switching destroys CPU cache, causing major performance hits on certain types of applications, notably media-encoding applications; additional task switching by the host OS exacerbates this.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
19. Re:why just why by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-04 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Waste of memory, CPU, and system stability. Cygwin suffices; WSL suffices better.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
20. Re:why just why by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  And that's pretty much the point. WSL doesn't need to do I/O across VM boundaries. Your fopen() call translates into a Linux system call (since you're running ELF Linux executables) but this call is mapped to Windows IO Request Packets (IRP's) which are then dispatched straight to the Windows driver stack. If you'd call fopen() from a Win32 executable, pretty much the same would happen except for the fact that the syscall is now named CreateFileEx().
21. Re:why just why by Eunuchswear · 2016-10-04 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. IO-bound tasks are slow in VM because IO requires a kernel call. So does task switching, memory mapping (mmap(), brk()), getting the time, getting process information, changing memory protections, advising on memory use (madvise()), sleeping, interprocess communication (pipes), creating shared memory, and several other things.
  So, like I said, a mostly cpu bound task like ffmpeg isn't going to see much difference.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
22. Re:why just why by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-04 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  CPU-bound tasks can lose clock cycles to task switching and context switches. Task switching destroys CPU cache, causing major performance hits on certain types of applications, notably media-encoding applications; additional task switching by the host OS exacerbates this.
  So a CPU-bound task like ffmpeg--that's going through a large span of memory and thus is sensitive to excessive cache flushes--is going to see a huge difference, depending on how much the hypervisor cooperates with the guest OS for task scheduling.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
23. Re:why just why by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 06:20 · Score: -1
  
  Because I want to use grep. Because I want to run scripts and write them in Bash. Because I like the find command. Because...
  
  Well then use Ubuntu. I have all these tools on this machine without the clutter and the wire tapping of Win10. If you want Ubuntu then why break it with win10???
  Please pull you head out of your ass.
24. Re:why just why by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Ever worked for a business that makes you use windows on your pc? Ever developed for windows? Having Ubuntu inside/alongside would be damn helpful in both of those cases.
  To put it another way: why do you think people install Cygwin? I can't speak for everyone but I installed it because I needed (for various reasons) to work in windows but wanted to be able to access a more powerful set of tools that just aren't available in native windows. That is why this is actually quite a nice idea.
You know the rest... by jedidiah · 2016-10-03 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think this is the "embrace" stage...

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
1. Re:You know the rest... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 07:59 · Score: -1
  
  You never seem to have left the "worthless shitbag" stage that seems against any sort of progress in Windows. You bitch and whine because it doesn't have the tools you want, and then you bitch and whine when they try to add them.
2. Re:You know the rest... by asalazar · 2016-10-03 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  You never seem to have left the "worthless shitbag" stage that seems against any sort of progress in Windows. You bitch and whine because it doesn't have the tools you want, and then you bitch and whine when they try to add them.
  You never seem to have left the "Microsoft Justice Warrior" stage that seems against any sort of criticism based on previous experiences with Microsoft. The day when instead of Ubuntu you get Microsoft Windows will be the "extend" phase.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Where the sig outsmarts the comment
3. Re:You know the rest... by asalazar · 2016-10-03 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  The day when instead of Ubuntu you get Microsoft Windows will be the "extend" phase.
  Um, I meant Microsoft Linux, Feel free to disregard my mistake and continue suffering my caustic cynicism.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Where the sig outsmarts the comment
4. Re:You know the rest... by networkBoy · 2016-10-03 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  you mean Xenix?
  It's been forever since I loaded that...
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
5. Re:You know the rest... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  You can't even troll right. There are no Microsoft Justice Warriors. But, clearly Linux zealots are continually living in the past. Thus you're an easy target for abuse.
6. Re:You know the rest... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  I'm certainly against any progress in Windows--or Mac OS, or any other proprietary software.
  Any software it's illegal to improve should just go away.
7. Re:You know the rest... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  So, how many shares of MSFT did your dead parents leave you.
8. Re:You know the rest... by bheerssen · 2016-10-03 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  you mean Xenix?
  Man, I loved that TV show. I had the hots for Xenix's little brunette friend.
  
  --
  (Score: -1, Stupid)
9. Re:You know the rest... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:00 · Score: 0
  
  The number of shares I got from my parents equals the number of times you jacked off to the fat fuck Richard "RMS Titanic" Stallman while fantasizing he is sucking your cock that is so fucking small that you are below even omega status and you can't even get a fucking job. That noise you heard? That was me banging your mother so fucking hard that she now wants you to fucking leave.
Why? by JamesTRexx · 2016-10-03 07:38 · Score: 2

This now makes me wonder what reason there could be to run Ubuntu on Windows instead of Windows on Linux. For the few pieces of software like CAD (or games) I can understand, but then I can't think of a use for those professionals to use Linux in a virtual machine.

So, what scenario would fit best to use Linux on Windows instead of Windows on Linux for the professional? (I myself use Proxmox as a desktop with severeal machines for testing on it)

--
home
1. Re:Why? by blane.bramble · 2016-10-03 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of corporate Windows-only shops that this at least gives another option to.
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  One word: drivers
3. Re:Why? by JamesTRexx · 2016-10-03 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  But what would those options be for? If it's a Windows shop, what use would they have for running Linux that they couldn't do on Windows?
  
  --
  home
4. Re:Why? by JamesTRexx · 2016-10-03 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Need more words to clarify. :-)
  
  Development? Specialised hardware to operate machinery?
  Then it doesn't seem to me that there's a reason to run a Linux virtual macine on that. Might even be more prone to breaking things.
  
  --
  home
5. Re:Why? by SirSlud · 2016-10-03 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Using bash shell and GNU for tools/scripts/etc is nice. Frankly, if you think Ubuntu on Windows is "running Linux" I don't think you quite get what it is at all.
  
  --
  "Old man yells at systemd"
6. Re:Why? by omnichad · 2016-10-03 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Because this isn't an emulation layer - just a different kernel. It's native binaries and no virtualization. You just can't do the reverse on Linux.
7. Re:Why? by wonkey_monkey · 2016-10-03 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  This now makes me wonder what reason there could be to run Ubuntu on Windows instead of Windows on Linux.
  How about because Ubuntu on Window works, while "Windows" (which isn't really Windows) on Linux can be kind of a crap-shoot. A very crappy crap shoot.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  But of course bash shell and GNU tools have been available on Windows for years.
9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  This now makes me wonder what reason there could be to run Ubuntu on Windows instead of Windows on Linux. For the few pieces of software like CAD (or games) I can understand, but then I can't think of a use for those professionals to use Linux in a virtual machine.
  So, what scenario would fit best to use Linux on Windows instead of Windows on Linux for the professional? (I myself use Proxmox as a desktop with severeal machines for testing on it)
  Windows restricted professional software combined with embedded development. The environment support is somewhat lacking, since it doesn't support libusb.
  Realistically I think the primary reason is MCU developers, who don't want to switch from windows.
10. Re:Why? by RDW · 2016-10-03 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  There are any number of Unix/Linux applications that have never been ported to Windows by their developers and have no direct equivalent in the MS world. If most of your work is in Windows, it makes obvious sense to run that as your main OS, but having the ability to use additional Unix/Linux packages fills a real need. I've been doing this by varous means since the 90s, using Cygwin, VMs, and now this thing. It may possible to (e.g.) use Windows-native GNU tools (MinGW, etc.) to build the software you need, but that's not always straightforward or worth the bother - much easier to 'apt-get install' and get on with your work.
11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  I use it as a developer feature primarily. It is nice to be able to develop and test scripts and utilities on my workstation instead of doing so on a production server or creating a dedicated machine for. At the company I work for all of the workstations are windows but our back-end servers are UNIX based.
  Also I sometimes need one off web scraping or parsing functionality which is much more convenient and easy to do in a native linux environment then trying to do the same on windows.
12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  Cross-compiling Windows software which has only a Linux build environment, or running and compiling some engineering tools which are not run in a separate Linux HPC cluster or in Azure instances (plug inserted) might be more comfortable in this environment than with a separate VM.
13. Re: Why? by ljw1004 · 2016-10-03 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why linux on Windows? ...
  You want to develop on Visual Studio because it's an awesome dev environment, but bash is a much better solution for build/config scripts.
14. Re:Why? by KiloByte · 2016-10-03 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Windows doesn't have stable "real" syscalls -- you're supposed to use a shared lib interface that is rock stable (ABI-compatible down to 3.11+win32s, mostly API-compatible all the way back to Windows 1). The real syscalls are undocumented and change in incompatible ways even between minor updates of the OS.
  Thus, win32/win64 on NT is no more or less "native" than Wine.
  On the other hand, WSL implements compatibility at syscall level.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  To complete blane.bramble's sentiment, plenty of corporate shops that develop for Linux, but allow only windows on the desktop/laptop (because that's all central IT is prepared to handle...), making you use centrally administered servers for said development with no fancy X tools, not the browser you want, and anything else the BOFH feels you should suffer through...
  For that, you want Linux on windows, and this may be a viable alternative instead of running a VM.
16. Re:Why? by omnichad · 2016-10-03 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Thus, win32/win64 on NT is no more or less "native" than Wine.
  That would be an important point if everything actually ran on WINE. There are a LOT of useful Linux utilities than run just fine from a CLI, but very few for Windows. GUI incompatibility is the big one for WINE, and there are plenty of stable X servers available for Windows and a well-documented protocol.
17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Better drivers. That's why
18. Re:Why? by jcdr · 2016-10-03 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's doable, the Wine project prove that point. It's just way more complicated...
  In addition to what "KiloByte" have said, Microsoft have the Linux source code as implementation reference to look at, while the Wine project didn't have a chance to look at the Microsoft kernel and libraries.
19. Re:Why? by julian67 · 2016-10-03 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't Linux and it isn't a virtual machine.
20. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Of course you can. Just hand over the sources to the Windows libraries so we can port it over like how Microsoft just did with glibc.
21. Re:Why? by jcdr · 2016-10-03 09:56 · Score: 2
  
  For that reason I always wanted that the win32/win64 API will be a international standard managed by an official organization like ISO. That way Microsoft will lost evil control of an API that is actually a very effective tool to kick off any concurrent. This will allow Wine to implement a good implementation based on detailed documentation.
  This is curious that no government on the planet require that win32/win64 are international standard, while there usually require standard certification on a tone of less critical parts of there infrastructure. OpenOffice did a genius master move by making ODF an international standard before Microsoft was able to do the same. If only Wine would get enough support to standardize win32/win64 before Microsoft. Seem to be an impossible dream actually.
22. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  But of course bash shell and GNU tools have been available on Windows for years.
  And this is a better way to get those tools, and they are better performing and better integrated tools.
23. Re:Why? by KiloByte · 2016-10-03 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Wine vs NT is same as Win98 vs NT -- all three are implementations of the win32 API, with different subtle incompatibilities. Do you remember the trouble when moving from 98 to XP? Wine is about on par with that. The 98->XP transition was done mostly by efforts of application programmers, trying to achieve full bug-to-bug compatibility in the implementation itself is a titanic work.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
24. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  I would bet though that there are a few MS engineers who have contributed to wine every now and then
25. Re:Why? by rtb61 · 2016-10-03 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  After Windows anal probe 10, M$ has the whole marketing stank thing going, it can't sell anything any more. Hence weird moves like this that serve no real purpose except marketing. So trying to associate with Ubuntu to recover some cool and loose a little bit of that stink. I don't think anyone is buying it though but they will still try. Expect of series of other similar PR=B$ stunts to try to improve their disgusting perve image, at least more government are starting to act against M$ and criminal prying into people's privacy.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
26. Re:Why? by bheerssen · 2016-10-03 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  I could see testing PHP, Perl, or Python scripts in such an environment. Think web development and things like that. There are probably a lot of use cases like that.
  
  --
  (Score: -1, Stupid)
27. Re:Why? by Billly+Gates · 2016-10-03 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  What about porting ReactOS to a linux kernel in userland? There is some success there in that platform and be a better solution than wine
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
28. Re:Why? by Billly+Gates · 2016-10-03 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  ReactOS seems a btter implementation but is immature kernel wise.
  Perhaps using reactOS on a linux kernel in userland an idea?
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
29. Re:Why? by omnichad · 2016-10-04 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's beside the point of my argument. Linux on Windows is more stable than Windows on Linux, because there's no GUI component involved in the translation layer.
30. Re:Why? by omnichad · 2016-10-04 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that just be WINE?
  The main difference between the two is the attempt at a kernel that mimics Windows' kernel more directly. Otherwise, they share quite a bit of code.
31. Re:Why? by HatofPig · 2016-10-10 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I have disabled TCP/IP 4 and 6, and Client for Microsoft Networking (or whatever it's called) for my wireless adaptor. All Windows does as host is establish a wifi connection. Then a Linux client requests an IP address over the bridged virtual network card, and from there I do all my surfing. The only drawback is that accelerated graphics don't work too well from inside the virtual machine. Otherwise, I never have to worry about the Windows host needing security updates, getting spyware, etc. because it's never on the internet!
  
  --
  Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
Typo, darn by JamesTRexx · 2016-10-03 07:41 · Score: 1

*several
Proofread too quick. Need edit option.

--
home
Uninstallable since 14915 by KiloByte · 2016-10-03 07:46 · Score: 1

Don't worry, that build is not available anyway. Since 14915, all Windows 10 Insider Preview does is downloading updates over and over, rebooting for several hours long installation that requires you to log in in the middle then rolls back the update for another several hours. Judging by the Feedback Hub, same happens to many or possibly most people on insider builds. And working versions are expired since Oct 1st.
I for one don't let Windows anywhere outside a VM but those who made the mistake of using Win10 Preview for some real use are pretty fucked.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Won't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 07:52 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter what you try to do for the Linux community at large, if it includes windows they'll whine like useless shitbags until MS gives up trying to include better tools to appease them.
We really should be encouraging this move instead of discouraging it.
Out-of-Touch IT by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

As an engineer, many places I have worked have IT departments which are run for the benefit of non-techies and completely out-of-touch with engineering. These companies simply do not understand the engineers' desires whatsoever. Windows is forced upon the engineers (80% of the white collar workforce) because it's simpler to maintain a single OS, and the remaining 20% wants windows. I am not saying that every engineer agrees with me. However, only one side of the debate is heard at most companies: those who want Windows.
1. Re:Out-of-Touch IT by perpenso · 2016-10-03 11:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  My Windows boxes at home and work have dual booted since the mid 90s. Even at companies whose software products targeted Windows only. Occasionally a task was better performed under *nix. I also try to separate UI and core code in projects and build/test the core code under both Windows and Linux. Crossplatform builds/testing is a nice way to find some bugs, some bugs are difficult to manifest in one environment and turn out to manifest easily in the other.
  
  Although to be honest the cross platform stuff worked best when I had a Mac around and could also target a completely different architecture, 68K or PPC CPUs back in the day. Admittedly it was easier to get an extra hard drive for Linux than a Mac. Fortunately at some of these jobs we also had Mac products.
2. Re:Out-of-Touch IT by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  "benefit of non-techies "
  Non-techies are usually called "users". The people IT techies should be building and supporting systems for. And users don't give two shits about what OS they are running they care about running applications. As an engineer you should be able to come up with a good presentation on why a company should switch from one OS to another. But there are two reasons you should keep to yourself if you don't want to be laughed out of the board room. Your personal preference is not a good reason to change and neither will expressing a hatred for all things related to MS.
I want Mint without systemd by HalAtWork · 2016-10-03 08:14 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Devuan is still in beta, Slackware is here now but lacks the Debian package pool (I enjoy nice recent versions of packages that are widely tested with no dependency issues, I love apt), as well as a bunch of other fringe distros...
Personally I've settled on Mint for my desktop, as it has all the software I need, as well as Cinnamon, which is important to me as it remains committed to delivering a consistent desktop UI that won't change for the sake of change, as did Gnome and KDE. If I could get my Cinnamon fix on a non-systemd distro, along with other packages I use, I would move in a heartbeat.
Rosegarden, K3B, Handbrake, Kodi, Inkscape, Gimp, LibreOffice, Cinnamon... That's all I need.
Ever since that day I have understood exactly how systemd eschews the "do one thing do it well" practice, and that even though it seems like individual components of systemd are being developed that way, they still come together as one giant integrated service where one flaw can affect/leverage its other components in attack. In other scenarios you could compromise an individual tool, but maybe SELinux granular permissions could help you, or maybe issues with that individual tool could be addressed, but if something in systemd is affected you're basically fucked top to bottom until a solution or shim is found, it is an ugly situation.
Anyone else in this position? What are you trying?

--
Twinstiq, game news
1. Re:I want Mint without systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  You can run Linux Mint 17.x or Linux Mint Debian Edition with the Cinnamon desktop. Neither includes systemd. In fact, LMDE gets the latest Cinnamon packages before Mint's main edition and runs SysV init.
2. Re:I want Mint without systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 09:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Anyone else in this position? What are you trying?
  I'm running Ubuntu under Windows 10, using the 'Bash on Ubuntu on Windows' feature. That way I can have Windows monitor the Linux environment and intervene in case of problems. It gives me the best of both worlds, Windows robustness and stability and access to the myriad of applications that are only available for Linux.
3. Re:I want Mint without systemd by HalAtWork · 2016-10-03 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I thought since Debian included systemd, so would LMDE? Thanks for the ideas, will definitely check it out!
  
  --
  Twinstiq, game news
4. Re:I want Mint without systemd by HalAtWork · 2016-10-03 09:19 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  That's cool, I'm glad it works for you. I don't have a Windows license or use any Windows specific apps, but I'm not even sure if some of the apps I use are available in that environment, such as Rosegarden.
  Also I'm not too familiar with Windows past 2000, I probably wouldn't know where to begin on what to enable/disable to have a usable desktop without nags, and I'm not a fan of updating each driver/app separately (or even installing drivers, which I don't have to do in Linux). I mentioned that I love apt because I like being able to update everything all at once, knowing that no update will conflict with another and knowing everything has been tested in that configuration together.
  I also really don't like how certain updates reset certain settings to default, I don't want my settings to be randomy changed.
  I don't think Windows is an option for me, it would be hard for me to abandon the conveniences of my current desktop.
  
  --
  Twinstiq, game news
5. Re:I want Mint without systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Windows robustness and stability
  Fuck me, you ARE new here.
6. Re:I want Mint without systemd by HalAtWork · 2016-10-03 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. LMDE is not frequently updated, and as it is based on Debian and not Devuan would probably eventually migrate to systemd automatically by default, I'd probably be better sticking with Mint 17.3 LTS until 2019...
  
  --
  Twinstiq, game news
7. Re: I want Mint without systemd by Type44Q · 2016-10-03 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  It gives me the best of both worlds, Windows robustness and stability and access to the myriad of applications that are only available for Linux.
  Whoosh?
8. Re: I want Mint without systemd by perpenso · 2016-10-03 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  It gives me the best of both worlds, Windows robustness and stability and access to the myriad of applications that are only available for Linux.
  Whoosh?
  Actually a double Whoosh. One statement poking fun at Windows and another statement poking fun at Linux.
9. Re:I want Mint without systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  and you wonder why the Year of the Linux Desktop never arrived.
10. Re:I want Mint without systemd by HalAtWork · 2016-10-03 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Me? No, I focus on what I'm doing, not what others are trying to do, unless they specifically ask for my help/input
  
  --
  Twinstiq, game news
11. Re:I want Mint without systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  "Windows robustness and stability" Score 10:Very Funny
12. Re:I want Mint without systemd by Eunuchswear · 2016-10-04 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Debian includes systemd if you want it to. If you don't want to use systemd install some other init system.
  Strangely, Devuan, that was supposed to give people "init freedom" doesn't support systemd.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
13. Re:I want Mint without systemd by HalAtWork · 2016-10-04 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, that's very informative... Makes me wonder why all the hubris over forking Debian then if you can just install some other init... I guess because some packages are starting to depend on it? Anyway, I'll try this, thanks for the idea.
  
  --
  Twinstiq, game news
14. Re: I want Mint without systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  One joke, one whoosh.
15. Re:I want Mint without systemd by Eunuchswear · 2016-10-04 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Makes me wonder why all the hubris over forking Debian then if you can just install some other init... I guess because some packages are starting to depend on it?
  
  As far as I know no packages in Debian that are not part of systemd depend on systemd being the init system. Some packages do depend on systemd being installed for various complicated reasons.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
16. Re: I want Mint without systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  One whoosh to rule them all.
Where is Microsoft's source repository? by darkonc · 2016-10-03 08:24 · Score: 1

They're making all of this GPL code available on a commercial basis. I believe that this makes them responsible for making a source repository available. (been a while since I (re) read the pertinent sections of the GPL.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
1. Re:Where is Microsoft's source repository? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  They actually don't need to as they just download directly from Ubuntu repos. They emulate the syscalls of the kernel and as such there's nothing they've compiled from GPL source code.
2. Re:Where is Microsoft's source repository? by Megol · 2016-10-03 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Not even if they were distributing GPL software would they need to do that (they would need to provide some kind of access to sources though) however they don't so...
Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:29 · Score: 0

Who cares? Only Microsoft and Canonical as far as I can tell. If you really use Linux in your day to day work, why would you not just work on Linux directly, seriously.
Does wine work... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 08:32 · Score: 0

in Ubuntu on Windows? Because, I need to run Windows programs without getting a virus.
The cart before the horse? by evolutionary · 2016-10-03 08:48 · Score: 2

Gee, doesn't it make MORE sense to run Windows in Linux (VirtualBox, Proxmox, KVM). Safer, easier to audit network activity. It's amazing how people don't seem to see the light, even when the potion is on the table in front of them saying "drink me" AND they know people who have already tasted the potion and haven't died, or gotten sick.

--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
1. Re:The cart before the horse? by _merlin · 2016-10-03 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  It's not even easy to audit network activity on Linux once you get stuff like TCP offload engines involved. You pretty much need to use instrumented switches if you want to be sure of everything going in or out of your NICs.
2. Re:The cart before the horse? by denis-The-menace · 2016-10-04 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but then MS does not get to snoop on you while you do Linux stuff.
  
  --
  Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
3. Re:The cart before the horse? by evolutionary · 2016-10-04 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  While nothing is foolproof, that is the general idea. Anyone who is a doctor, lawyer or handles confidential data should not be using MS Windows while viewing/interacting with that data. Cellphone too, Cyanogen is what I use for cell phone use (and I cover my camera :D) PrivatOS may have possibilities too. (Yes Blackberry was giving data to the NSA for a couple years, but I believe that was directly from Blackberry, not leaked from the OS directly. Time will tell.) Android and iOS I suspect are preinfected/compromised out of the box (or at least out of the service provider shops/stores)
  
  --
  "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Does it run WiNE? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 09:15 · Score: 0

subject says it all
Why Microsoft do this ? by jcdr · 2016-10-03 10:07 · Score: 1

The question is especially interesting in the long term.
Will this be just a limited trick to please the developers that like usual console tools on Ubuntu. ?
Or will this be someday included by default on Windows with enough support to allow to run Linux applications ?
Docker by batkiwi · 2016-10-03 10:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

A re-paste of a comment I posted as a reply:
My belief is that the 99% use case of this is for running docker images.
Before this you could run docker on windows, but you had to create a "bizarre" tiny linux distro VM (100mb or so storage), and the docker on windows launcher would leverage that to provision and run the docker images. You had to dedicate ram to that VM to run your docker pool.
With this you can run docker images "natively", without a separate VM memory space, and due to the elf loader support they actually are running on windows itself.
I do not see this as a good alternative to traditional VMs.
1. Re:Docker by Espectr0 · 2016-10-03 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  windows server 2016 comes with container support built in, and guess what cloud platform it uses? Docker.
  
  --
  Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Microsoft Windows ... by Arkh89 · 2016-10-03 10:38 · Score: 1

... Systemd Edition?
Samba by colin_faber · 2016-10-03 10:46 · Score: 1

Can anyone tell me if this will allow NFS mounts? I really hate samba + windows and Unix services is only available for enterprise versions.
1. Re:Samba by fred6666 · 2016-10-03 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, this won't work.
  cat /proc/filesystems
  nodev sysfs
  nodev rootfs
  nodev bdev
  nodev proc
  nodev tmpfs
  nodev binfmt_misc
  nodev debugfs
  nodev sockfs
  nodev usbfs
  nodev pipefs
  nodev anon_inodefs
  nodev devpts
  ext3
  ext2
  ext4
  nodev ramfs
  nodev hugetlbfs
  vfat
  msdos
  iso9660
  fuseblk
  nodev fuse
  nodev fusectl
  yaffs
  yaffs2
  nodev mqueue
2. Re:Samba by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect the ext* ones don't really work. Easy way to find out: mount -o loop ext2fs.img /mnt
They can refer you to Ubuntu's repositories by perpenso · 2016-10-03 11:12 · Score: 1

Where is Microsoft's source repository? They're making all of this GPL code available on a commercial basis. I believe that this makes them responsible for making a source repository available. (been a while since I (re) read the pertinent sections of the GPL.
They don't need one. They are not modifying these tools so you can go to Ubuntu's repository. If you asked MS for the source they could fulfill their GPL obligation by referring you to Ubuntu's.

Note that they do not use the Linux kernel. They have alternative code for providing the necessary Linux APIs for the tools.
No systemd by The-Forge · 2016-10-03 12:51 · Score: 3, Funny

I'd figure everyone would be jumping for joy because there's no systemd in this.
1. Re:No systemd by Eunuchswear · 2016-10-04 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, all seven of the systemd obsessives may be excited -- but not really, because without systemd they have nothing to whine about. I mean, look at the windswept empty desert that is Devuan -- if people actually wanted a system without systemd they'd all be telling us about the exciting new developments in Devuan, rather than banging on about systemd in every thread that slightly touches on RedHat, Debian or Ubuntu.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
How about Windows on Linux? by Billly+Gates · 2016-10-03 18:24 · Score: 1

Could something like ReactOS be ported on a Linux kernel in userland to run win32 software?

--
http://saveie6.com/
Decent console environment for cheap win laptops. by efornara · 2016-10-03 21:43 · Score: 1

On a 2GB RAM / 32 GB storage cheap Windows laptop, I have found that Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) works fine and I would prefer it to full emulation given the limited amount of RAM available. For 150GBP, I have got a 1kg "disposable" notebook with a small form factor, decent keyboard and 10hrs battery life. I used to have a chromebook for that purpose, but I had to flash its firmware and hardware support wasn't perfect.
As a C++ development environment, you get the usual console tools (vim, git, cmake, gdb, ecc...), but g++ is quite old (4.8) which basically means C++11. Installing clang-3.8 from the repository worked, but I personally had dependency problems when I tried to install libc++. Good C++14 language support with poor C++11 standard library support works fine for me, so I didn't bother to try to solve the issue.
A problem I did not expect is the inability to access removable MicroSD from WSL, so you should be aware of that.
I am looking forward for when Ubuntu 16.04 will be available outside the insider program, so I can get an hassle-free, modern C++14 environment out of the box.
Ping? by bejiitas_wrath · 2016-10-03 23:05 · Score: 1

So does ping even work now? This is why I went back to Windows 7 after a drive failure.

--
liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
Oh shit, It's twitter. He's back by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:02 · Score: 0

Now twitter, go die in a fucking fire fucktard.
Intel VLAN by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:42 · Score: 0

Could you do something more usefull like working hands to hands with Intel to make VLAN work in current Windows 10 release.
And BTW, could you add VLAN natively like all modern OS.