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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
"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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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)