Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 Gets A New Linux: openSUSE (fossbytes.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
"Running Linux binaries natively on Windows... that sounds awesome indeed," writes Hannes Kuhnemund, the senior product manager for SUSE Linux Enterprise. He's written a blog post describing how to run openSUSE Leap 42.2 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2 on Windows 10, according to Fossbytes, which reports that currently users have two options -- openSUSE Leap 42.2 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2. Currently it's Ubuntu that's enabled by default in the Windows Subsystem for Linux, although there's already a project on GitHub that also lets you install Arch Linux. "It's quite unfortunate that Microsoft enabled the wrong Linux (that's my personal opinion) by default within the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL)," writes Kuhnemund, "and it is time to change it to the real stuff.
"It's quite unfortunate that Microsoft enabled the wrong Linux (that's my personal opinion) by default within the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL)," writes Kuhnemund, "and it is time to change it to the real stuff."
Running Windows binaries on Linux would be far more useful but very little effort seems to be devoted to that from the major Linux players.
Running Linux binaries natively on Windows... that sounds awesome indeed
Sounds horrible to me. Why bother?
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Doing what I do now - developing for Linux in Visual Studio. And, to be honest, even though I develop for Linux, I personally prefer using Windows on the desktop both at work and at home (my little home server runs on Debian, but it is mostly used as a data graveyard and the only time I actually use it is when running midnight commander in a ssh session).
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Why run Windows in the first place? I am an Agile transformation coach, and I work in large organizations, and I always wonder, Why, if they are deploying on RHEL, are their developers writing code on Windows laptops? The problems that result are endless. And the solution is simple: either (1) run real Linux in an VM; or (2) run Linux natively. #1 will satisfy enterprise access to email, etc. The solutions are already here. Trying to cram Linux into the Windows kernel seems bizarre to me. What do others think?
Weird, isn't it. Getting Linux working on Windows has to be MS's effort, since they're the ones with access to the build process of official releases, and they have access, like everyone, to Linux code and build process, even for SuSE. Getting Windows on Linux has to be MS's effort, since they're STILL the only ones with legitimate access to the source code of Windows and the "patented" stuff therein.
Yet it's Linux's fault that Windows programs don't work on Linux, and Linux's fault that Linux programs don't run on Windows.
MS still have the only legitimate access to all the information necessary to make this work. But failure is someone else's fault...
It's quite unfortunate that Microsoft enabled the wrong Linux (that's my personal opinion) by default within the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL),
Coming from someone who must use windows at work, it's fortunate that they (MS) are doing this at all. This arrogance and public disagreement within the community is uncalled for.
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
this functionality exists for multinationals governed by micromanagement and committee. companies that view changing their break room coffee with the same bureaucratic mentality as changing the mission statement. The ability to run Linux natively in Windows is the compromise insecure managers want to drive their "microsoft only" environment that crosses its T's and dots its I's of formal standards and compliance regulatory navel gazing. While it sounds wildly pointless to the average slashdotter, this "containerized" linux is exactly what the doctor ordered for companies that cant decide whether they want to enable emoji support in the office chat program without four or five rounds of meetings and an agenda signed by a director.
the only comfort you can take if your company does indeed decide to do this, is that while trading in your redhat licenses for whatever under-the-table credits Redmond is going to grease you with you can rest assured that thanks to high leadership turnover at your boat-without-a-sail megacompany youll eventually through the laws of statistical probability be gifted a manager that find Microsoft Linux on Windows to be just as insane as it sounds. the downside is that youll have to spend another year undoing this debacle.
Good people go to bed earlier.
All managed by a python script to download, install & switch whenever you want. https://github.com/RoliSoft/WSL-Distribution-Switcher
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
To answer your first question. Linux distributions fill different needs. RedHat, SUSE, Are Enterprise Linux solutions meaning your CIO won't have a fit with using them. Debian, Fedora are Server based where you realize you are not paying for anything important from getting the Enterprise support. Then you have the likes like Ubuntu and Mint. Which are more Desktop/Workstation linux distributions meant for people to work with. Not just set it and forget it.
Linux was designed to be a lot like Unix so it was mainly a server OS. So for some people the Real Linux is used for a server on big iron systems.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm wondering why they don't do a sensible, stable version like OpenBSD.
No sig today...
Well, uh...
"sensible" is the word you're looking for.
Visual Studio beats anything on Linux. If that's your main use for a computer then run whatever system it takes.
No sig today...
A lot of real people use Ubuntu Servers as basis for real business like Dropbox. So keep it real, bruh
Even if it's not broken, what would be the point? It could break at any time with a forced OS upgrade.
Somehow I doubt Microsoft will make one of those any time soon.
Crappy tablets?? Surface Pro 3 and 4 RULES!
Linux on Windows is part of Microsoft's 3-E strategy. If they can stunt the growth of Linux as an OS by co-opting Linux applications to run on Windows, they may eventually succeed in cutting the heart out of FOSS altogether. And they would LOVE to do that, because FOSS is one of the few significant forces standing between them and the conversion of the whole world to a software-as-a-service model, wherein the average user doesn't own shit and has fuck-all in the way of rights, choice, or legal recourse.
Anybody who has a choice shouldn't run Windows, and certainly shouldn't run Linux applications on Windows. And anybody who MUST run Windows, should also run Linux, and use Windows ONLY for those things that absolutely require it.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Obviously I run the software I develop, how else can I test it?
I simply don't use Linux as a workstation operating system.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Yeah Ubuntu 'server edition' is mainly a desktop/workstation distro. Ya Muppet.
I keep forgetting SUSE still exists.
Does anybody still use it, and how does it stack up against the other distro's?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Using Wine on Linux is much better for development and there are hardly any other use-cases.
...only for the subset of Windows applications (often old versions) that have gold/platinum support in Wine.
That said, once you accept that some people do actually want to run Windows (probably for the GUI - Linux folk never did get the message that a GUI is more than a way of running 8 copies of vim side-by-side), the real competitor to WSL for development is running Windows, with Linux as a virtual machine (as others have said, nobody ever picked Linux for its user-friendliness) set up to mimic your target environment.
Seems like the long-term advantage of WSL would be if future containerisation products could support both Windows and Linux containers side-by-sice while running natively on a Windows machine: currently Docker et. al. on WIndows install a Linux VM as the base OS. Of course, presumably you could use Wine to run server-side Windows stuff on a Linux container, but you can see that Microsoft wouldn't see that as Plan A. That said, hell did freeze over when MS started doing SQL Server for Linux...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"Enterprise" is a marketing term. It has no technological meaning. The "real" Linux is the one with the capabilities you need. If you need RedHat, then it's because you have incompetent tech workers who need a support contract, not because you need "real" Linux.
Why would you want to keep the truck around when you can jusr drive the Ferrari?
The article says "Well, SUSE knows what they are doing because they have been in the Linux business since 1992. Try to find a Linux “vendor” (or in that sense, distributor) which is older. You won’t. There aren’t any." This is deceptive. SLS was the first linux distribution in 1992. Slackware was developed from that and released in 1993. The first SUSE distribution was a German translation of Slackware. Stating the obvious, Slackware is still around and is older. Then in 1996 Suse made their own distribution based on Jurix.
If you need RedHat, then it's because you have incompetent tech workers who need a support contract, not because you need "real" Linux.
Or, you run something shitty like Oracle DBMS, where the company will refuse to support you unless you run one of their approved OS's (i.e., Red Hat).
Linux folks generally don't get GUIs because that was never part of their education. Most are perfectly happy with a command line interface. GUI development is hard and requires a very different skill set. It is more of an art with a lot of touchy-feely air about it. And one person's GUI is another's bane if not done correctly. Consider allowing the command line interface to be lifted into a GUI. What are the paradigms that must be supported? How orthogonal are the features? How do modal interactions cloud the intent of the commands? Are there even commands?
The "support contracts" also gain you access to developers when needed. At times I have had enterprise agreements with both RedHat and SUSE. On more that one occasion when facing esoteric bugs we have been able to escalate via our support contracts. As soon as they were able to reproduce the bugs they are were able to drive upstream code changes to fix the bugs.
Conversely I have worked directly with a number of open source software developer to address bugs, but I will say that it was much effective working with developers that are paid to address bug and already a reputation in the open source community. Because my team's time is much more valuable than the cost of enterprise support contracts I would much rather keep them focused on much higher value activities.
To put things into snarky terms you might understand, "real" Linux is a complete open source ecosystem of capabilities and services. [snark mode]If you do not need an enterprise support contract it is likely because you do not provide much value to a company and so your time is best spent tinkering and chasing down issues.[/snark mode]
The point is I know how to grow my own food, but I still go to the grocery store because my time is in demand. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate my neighbors who have beautiful gardens, and I doubt that they think of me as incompetent because I go to grocery store either.
-rd
MS still have the only legitimate access to all the information necessary to make this work. But failure is someone else's fault...
Well, it's not so strange. After all, they have problems sometimes making *Windows* binaries work right on Windows.
People run RedHat for the long-term support. Enterprises don't like being forced to upgrade on a vendor's schedule, and RedHat was the first Linux provider to recognize that and cater to it. Timely security upgrades for a consistent platform - over years - is what enterprise users want. And like it or not, that is a technological meaning.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
And by "broken" I mean not compatible to itself, and MS will insist that theirs is the correct one and the original should be fed to the dogs. This is the sad story of every "open" product support by MS: .Net
1. MS-Java was taken to court by Sun for not being compartible to Java. MS had to rename it to
2. MS implementation of open document standard is never 100% compatible with open document readers.
3. IE is not HTML compatible to this day. I don't do web development but based on my research they struggle with IE peculiarities big time
4. MS Linux is guaranteed to break everything Linux, not just because of lack of diligence but due to MS custom APIs, enhancements and "improvements". We are only safe until MS distro becomes the leading one.
I used to be in a position to have a lot of behind-the-scenes discussions with hardware and software companies about their development and product plans, and their biggest headache, by far, was Linux, for exactly the reason you mention: Linux is not a monolithic platform. (And please, no one deliver the tired, pedantic argument that Linux is the relatively coherent kernel and distros are where things go off the rails. That's precisely the kind of thinking that's keeping Linux off the mainstream desktop.)
I desperately want to ditch Windows for Linux, but there's no way I can do it, even though I've been trying for a couple of decades; I have the latest Ubuntu on a laptop right now, in fact, as part of my latest charge up that hill. It lacks some apps I must have, as well as some drivers. (I just bought a Canon wide-carriage ink jet printer, only to find that there's no Linux driver for it. What a mess.)
The core problem is not that you can't totally ignore the command line or that there are so many sorta kinda almost compatible distros or the lack of app/driver support, but that so few people in the "Linux community" even agree there's a problem in these areas. Until that happens, I guarantee that Linux will never get beyond its current status of being a greater server OS but a geek toy in the end user space.
What's so awesome about getting all of the disadvantages of Windows with none of the benefits of Linux in order to run less user-friendly applications from Linux? Using Wine on Linux is much better for development and there are hardly any other use-cases.
Not just that, what Linux application is there that is not available under Windows? That Windows needs a way to run it?
Also, there are some hundreds of Linux distros out there, so why pick any? It would have made more sense for Microsoft to do what FreeBSD does - have specific Linux jails - like Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and Slack, and then let people run their applications on them. Also provide the user the option of using anything w/ or w/o systemd
Well, uh...
"sensible" is the word you're looking for.
Visual Studio beats anything on Linux. If that's your main use for a computer then run whatever system it takes.
I think AC was questioning dundelfalke's practice of developing software for Linux, but not having a Linux bed to actually test it on. You'd think that a Linux developer would have computers w/ the various base distros, like Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and Slackware, which would enable him to ensure that his stuff would work on the bulk of distros out there.
Something tells me that he's trolling RMS
If I understand it right, it's a GNU/Linux distro without a Linux kernel on top of a compatibility layer on Windows, right?
What should it be called? It's not exactly Linux, and we don't say that WINE is a Windows on Linux. It's also not only GNU.
Getting Linux to run under Windows is like paying a call girl to hold the Fleshlight for you.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'd imagine having a bunch of different distros embracing this Bash for Ubuntu Linux subsystem for Windows will lead to a lot of the bugs being ironed out.
Embrace, extend, extinguish. At least the New Microsoft (TM) is giving us what we want, though.
Clearly this move is to insure Microsoft is able to data mine you/serve ads as you use Linux/Linux programs natively they don't want people dual booting, Cant data mine that way without breaking laws. that is all IMO
Jack of all trades,master of none
He's written a blog post describing how to run openSUSE Leap 42.2 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2 on Windows 10, according to Fossbytes, which
reports that currently users have two options -- openSUSE Leap 42.2 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2.
So you can run openSUSE Leap 42.2 or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2? But how do you choose which of openSUSE Leap 42.2 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2 to run?
openSUSE Leap 42.2 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP2
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Then you could use either ReactOS in your VM, or run Wine straight in your userspace.
And again there are also companies supporting *that*.
(e.g.: CrossOver pays developers)
So *there is* company-sponsored efforts to be able to run windows programs in a GNU/LInux or Android/Linux environment.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If I understand it right, it's a GNU/Linux distro without a Linux kernel on top of a compatibility layer on Windows, right?
Yup, mostly(*).
So "GNU/Windows NT Kernel" is better than "Linux" - That actually one of the rare few occastion a typical "GNU/Linux" distro gets used without the Linux kernel part.
But because "Linux" has brand recognition, it's still used.
---
(*): there's no separate compatibility layer (unlike things like Cygwin which are a user-mode compatibility layer that translates POSIX API-calls into Win32 calls - and thus enables soure compatibility).
The NT-Kernel has a bizare peculiarity : it can export several different ABI's to usermode software - it has different "personnalities".
- Win32 is just *one* of the set of ABI available.
- A long time ago, that made it possible to run OS/2 software on Windows NT.
- A little bit less longer time ago, Windows NT also had a "Unix" personality.
- Now WSL is actually the NT kernel exhibiting a small subset of the ABI featured by the linux kernel - about the bare minimum to get a few basic user-mode software (e,.g.: the "GNU" part of "GNU/Linux") run unmodified.
These are straight ABI available from the NT-Kernel, not a mere Linux-to-Win32 API conversion like Cygwin.
e.g.:
- Among other defaults Win32 has a poor multi-processing (forking is expensive). Cygwin application have to rely on that poorer cousin in order to provide multi-processing to POSIX.
- The recent kernels of Windows NT intoduced pico-thread which are very cheap, weren't available in the Win32 API back when introduced, but where exposed through the "Linux-lite" API that is WSL in order to make a usefull multiprocessing.
On the other hand WSL is far from complete. There is tons of stuff that you can do on your GNU/Linux that you can't do with WSL (e.g.: filesystem drivers)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Ubuntu is run by Canonical, which is partnered with Micro$oft. That's why Ubuntu gets more attention. However, funny how they did partner with Micro$oft and actually lost 3 million dollars at the end of the year. I prefer OpenSUSE over Unbuntu not only because I can't trust them anymore, but because they actually have more packages available (RPMs). The problem is, Ubuntu made things easier and every one got spoiled and all the tutorials on the Internet are now for "Ubuntu." The package management is different (replace 'apt-get' with 'zypper'...that was hard ðY'). The file structure is the same. But, OpenSUSE is soooooo much faster. I built my distro using Susestudio and I don't seeing myself going back to Ubuntu anything anytime soon. I'd post a link to it, but Slashdot keeps flagging me when I do it. Just take a look at my username and guess if your interested.
libraries. basically anything you plug in to a motherboard will have different linux projects which sort of make it work, each of which will have a couple of forks and several subtly-incompatible minor versions and patches. then there will be a bunch of interface projects duct-taped on top of those projects, which are even more muddled and confusing, and the only documentation is hoping that someone has made a wiki page about it.
even free software developers are giving up on distro package systems because it's a god-awful mess that depends on good will and free labor which just isn't there right now.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
a driver is a binary, unless you're running an interpreted kernel for some reason.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Visual Studio beats anything on Linux.
This is the sort of thing you hear from Windows devs in a bubble. Visual Studio is the best.......only for C# and .NET. The fact is it doesn't even have basic refactoring tools, something that even Eclipse has had for a decade. Visual Studio without Resharper is really a pain. With Resharper, Visual Studio becomes tolerable, and you have to pay for it. And this only relevant if you prefer the kind of corporate development environment of Java/C# (which in many cases is the right choice). If you prefer the freedom of dynamic languages like Python, or low level languages like C, or for some reason think Node is King, then Visual Studio is a joke that will leave you crying. It's not even a competitor.
Incidentally, the reason VS was better than Eclipse a decade ago was because it was easier to set up projects. Not anymore, Eclipse has advanced past VS in that category.
Also NuGet is a dog. Even Jon Skeet says so.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm no fan of Oracle, but if they didn't require that the OS can at least be recognized by the support workers, they'd never get around to actually support anything. They're not Linux support, they're application support. And remember, they are actually supporting Linux where they've dropped support for Mac OS.
Oracle is getting pretty long in the tooth, and Microsoft is outstripping them in both performance, features AND cost, so there is some justification to call them shitty. But to call them that because they support the "wrong Linux" and not your pet project just illustrates the problem with Linux: it's a sect, not an OS.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
People run RedHat for the long-term support. Enterprises don't like being forced to upgrade on a vendor's schedule, and RedHat was the first Linux provider to recognize that and cater to it. Timely security upgrades for a consistent platform - over years - is what enterprise users want. And like it or not, that is a technological meaning.
Uh... no. SLES (Oct 2001) came months before RHELAS (Mar 2002) and even so Red Hat doesn't acknowledge the existence of 2.1 (wikipedia does) which still came after regardless. Red Hat's official position is that RHELAS didn't exist until v3 (Jan 2004). Feature for feature, IMHO, Red Hat didn't have an enterprise worthy product until RHEL 5.
I get your meaning, you just used the wrong distro in your argument.
The hardware manufacterers are moaning about Linux because it's hostile to closed source software. When the hardware manufacterers actually start contributing code to the relevant open source projects, they'll find that Linux is a lot more easy to develop for.
But no, the hardware manufacterers want to remain in control of their drivers and find that the open source projects simply keep moving forward, possibly breaking the binary only drivers.
The hardware manyfacterers are at fault here, not the community.
All projects which deal with hardware are easily accessible and are willing to work with hardware manufacterers to produce drivers. So, the excuse that it's hard to produce drivers for Linux is just bullshit to cover up that they want to remain in control... and yes, at that point things get hard with Linux.
Even if they just provide documentation, the community will come up with a driver.
What running linux binaries on windows is good for anyway? Pretty much all staple linux software has native windows ports. So they could drop those ports and rely on WSL?
Uhh, whenever I'm forced to run Windows I'm reminded how spoiled I am with KDE's Dolphin file manager.
The windows offerings are no comparison.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I can't wait to see this error:
rm: The action can't be completed because the file is open in another program. Close the file and try again.
There is no need to test it for several Linux distributions, I target specific hardware with a specific runtime environment. You know all these WiFi routers that run Linux underneath a web GUI? Something like that.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I still don't understand what so great about Visual Studio
Agreed. I've used dozens of development environments, from PCs to mainframes. Some have been very constraining; some have been very limited; some have been downright odd (PDM on the AS/400 circa 1989, for example[1]).
Is Venomous Studio full of features? Sure. Is it extensible? Sure. Is it appealing? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder; some people like some incarnations of the VS GUI.
But claims that it's "better" than other development environments are either highly domain-specific (domains which the VS proponents generally forget to mention), or they're just subjective preference masquerading as argument - probably because the person making it doesn't understand the difference, and refuses to accept that their personal experience doesn't describe everyone's. That's one of the most popular fallacies in software development, of course; there's a reason why the Jargon File has that "All the world's a VAX" entry.
I use VS when I have to - I've been using it for over a decade - but most of my Windows development is done using an IDE I call "bash". It has a wide range of extensions, including my editor of choice (gvim), my preferred Windows native-mode debugger (windbg), a build system that handles various generations of Microsoft build scripts (nmake & msbuild), and a huge array of tools. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to anyone else, but it works for me.
[1] Prolepsis: No, it really wasn't much like ISPF at all.