Slashdot Mirror


Ubuntu Arrives in the Windows Store, Suse and Fedora Are Coming To the Windows Subsystem For Linux (venturebeat.com)

At its Build developer conference today, Microsoft announced that Ubuntu has arrived in the Windows Store. From a report: The company also revealed that it is working with Fedora and Suse to bring their distributions to the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) in Windows 10. At the conference last year, Microsoft announced plans to bring the Bash shell to Windows. The fruits of that labor was WSL, a compatibility layer for running Linux binary executables (in ELF format) natively on Windows, which arrived with the Windows 10 Anniversary Update released in August 2016. Microsoft also partnered with Canonical to allow Ubuntu tools and utilities to run natively on top of the WSL. By bringing Ubuntu to the Windows Store, the company is now making it even easier for developers to install the tools and run Windows and Linux apps side by side. Working with other Linux firms shows that Microsoft's deal with Canonical was not a one-time affair, but rather part of a long-term investment in the Linux world.

126 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Strangely enough... by PontifexMaximus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No one really cares. What benefits are there to this, other than MS trying to lock people into the MS/Linux space? It's like the Borg. Anyone with sense pushes people AWAY from MS, not toward it just because it 'runs linux'.

    --
    Pax Vobiscum
    1. Re:Strangely enough... by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many Linux server developers run Windows. This way they don't need a separate machine or VM.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:Strangely enough... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Troll

      Because running a VM is just the hardest thing in the world

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Strangely enough... by dahlellama · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this get around the app store restriction of Windows S?

    4. Re:Strangely enough... by DickBreath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many real Linux developers are on Windows and have trouble with running a VM, or a separate box?

      Windows Subsystem for Linux merely provides a Linux kernel personality or API on the Windows kernel. Wouldn't someone developing for Linux want the real Linux kernel? Should your development and testing be done on something as close to the production system as possible?

      Surely Microsoft would introduce some "extra" features that are addictively sweet into it's Linux ABI. Just like Microsoft did with Java a decade and a half ago -- in violation of the agreement Microsoft signed with Sun -- and got sued for it and cost them $1.2 Billion. Surely nice, friendly Microsoft wouldn't want you to get hooked on something that doesn't exist in the real Linux, and therefore makes you consider deploying Windows in production?

      I mean, after all, Microsoft Loves Linux. And Sharks Love Fish. And Foxes Love Chickens.

      BTW, Wine now runs on Windows Subsystem for Linux.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:Strangely enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Setting up and using a VM is a lot harder than clicking a checkbox to turn on the WSL feature and then running bash.exe.

    6. Re:Strangely enough... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Because it's so hard to use the native tools that the VM has to mount shares...

      I've been using the bastard-stepchild of virtual machine software, Oracle's free-as-in-beer Virtualbox to run Windows on one of my Linux servers for those few times I need software that runs on Windows, and they made it easy to create share/mappings to connect to directories on the host file system in the guest opeating system. It was no burden to make it work.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Strangely enough... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 5, Funny

      running bash.exe

      There's blood coming out of my eyes just by reading this part.

    8. Re:Strangely enough... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

      100% agree with you on this. If the case was that Linux costs a lot of money to run, and that you want people developping for it, it would be a good way. But people developping on Linux usually run Linux.

      I don't think they'll get any more adoption of Win 10 because they offer to run the Bash on Windows. I abandonned Win 10 not because it doesn't run Bash, but because of the Nagware, lack of control over the OS and updates, and the plain sight ads they put in my face on the login screen. Oh and because of all the tracking they do.

      I was with Windows up until 7. Now I'm out, for good.

    9. Re:Strangely enough... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      there's also something like sftp net drive, that lets you mount drives via ssh

    10. Re:Strangely enough... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Project much?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    11. Re:Strangely enough... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      A while back I warned people that Microsoft looked like they wanted to try to annex and subvert Linux, and now I'm seeing I was right.

    12. Re: Strangely enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because its so hard to shift gears manually. (Auto transmission)

      Because its so hard to reheat things on a stove. (Microwave)

      Because its so hard to go to your desktop computer to send email. (Smart phone or laptop)

      Because its so hard to get the calculator out to add. (... stupid)

      Because its so hard to retype text. (Copy and paste)

      With your simple minded thinking no progress should be made. Because its not hard to do anything the old fashion way.

      Better get on your horse.

    13. Re:Strangely enough... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      How many real Linux developers are on Windows and have trouble with running a VM, or a separate box?

      How about not wasting a ton of RAM? Unused reserved RAM (Virtualbox is not a super advanced bare metal hypervisor), duplicate disk caches, further waste of storage such as a virtual swap partition for the VM.
      Now think about all the young devs and even old farts using a laptop some of them with 8GB RAM max (8GB is the new 2GB, thanks to software bloat and the javascript web)

    14. Re: Strangely enough... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't be too much of an issue if Window$ 10 wasn't riddled with spyware. You have Linux inside of Window$, not side-by-side. This means that Micro$oft still has all the control and final say while pushing and locking people into cloud computing crap, same business as usually and totally defeats the purpose as to why people choose Linux in the first place. If they don't want you to use FOSS on their platform, you won't.

    15. Re:Strangely enough... by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      VirtualBox is also great for working with Vagrant tasks, so that developers not just have the code to build/test, but the actual environment the code runs in. This way, the guy with the ton of oddball applications including an instance of Bonzi Boddy running in a W98 VM gets the same results as everyone else.

    16. Re:Strangely enough... by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      also launching WSL is instant, starting a VM isn't.

    17. Re:Strangely enough... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That way round is trivial.

      I tried doing it with a Windows 8 host and I couldn't even get VirtualPox to start.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Strangely enough... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight. You and the other moron in the GP post basically have the same argument: "because it's so hard" sarcasm?

      Guy invents automobile. You morons: "Because it's so hard to hop on my horse? LOL!!!"

      Guy invents horn. You morons: "Because it's so hard to shrilly scream out my window LOL??"

      Guy invents light bulb. You morons: "Because it's so hard to light a candle LOL!!!"

      This place has really become a caricature of itself.

    19. Re:Strangely enough... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      WSL has native performance.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    20. Re:Strangely enough... by DickBreath · · Score: 1, Troll

      If you are using Windows, then why would you possibly feign pretend concern about efficiency of RAM and storage?

      That's like a coal burning power plant expressing concern about pollution caused by someone burning leaves in a barrel.

      RAM is cheap. Cheap. I use 32 GB on my workstation at home, and on each of two workstations at work. A local server in my office, for my own use is 64 GB. And production servers can have more. I am a Java developer, :-), yes, seriously not joking.

      It's just a (small) cost of doing business. Productivity of people is far, far more important than a few gigabytes of ram or terabytes of disk. People focused on pure technical efficiency over business concerns probably don't stay in business. Technical efficiency is great. And something to strive for. But not if it costs you time, every single day, and you can just throw some minor resources at it to save that time every day. If you can make a person 30 minutes more productive every day by giving them a standard configuration of 32 GB, big dual monitors, etc. then it is a huge money saver.

      Why run Linux under Windows Subsystem for Linux? Especially when it isn't even real Linux? If you're deploying on Linux, then develop and test on Linux. It's like saying, I'm developing for a formula 1 race car, but what I have in my office is a Windows workstation with a lawnmower engine that has a fake body cover on it to make it look like a formula 1 race car. It won't be any different in production. What could possibly go wrong?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    21. Re:Strangely enough... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I can see it being useful. A lot of people need or want to develop on Linux, however corporate needs also require fully compatible Office applications. So this cuts things down so that you can be a developer but only have one computer. If it works of course. The bootcamp for OSX is not a good solution for this, and VMware is often too resource intensive. The drawaback is that it's the spyware edition of Windows, it would be nicer to see this in Windows 7 and 8.1, though I can understand that it requires major core OS changes (the "real" operating system).

      Ie, I've had to use Cygwin tools under Windows for my primary job and it felt clumsy much of the time (this was before MINGW improved enough to viable for the same purpose). At a different job I had to use two computers, one for development and one for documents and email.

    22. Re:Strangely enough... by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      People building something that will run on the real Linux kernel in production. Those people should be very concerned about running on a completely different Windows kernel that has a module to emulate the Linux ABI. Just imagine. Develop and test on Windows, then deploy on a real Linux kernel. What could possibly go wrong?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    23. Re:Strangely enough... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It is relatively difficult. It sucks up huge amounts of diskspace for me and in some cases causes significant slowdowns. It never quite works perfectly (I've got an ubuntu image that won't get time from the host system and I can't figure out why). Sharing files can be complicated, any new kernel release has a good chance to break the VMware Tools which then has to be rebuilt, and so forth. Now try putting a team of 30 people doing this and it's going to be a constant administrative headache.

    24. Re:Strangely enough... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's not how you're supposed to read Braille.

    25. Re:Strangely enough... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

      You don't READ braille, you TOUCH braille, you insensitive clod!

    26. Re:Strangely enough... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No, it's because VMware running linux really isn't that easy to use for many people. Guy invents candle and insists that everyone builds their own candles from scratch and please don't use the lightbulb because it's for noobs.

    27. Re: Strangely enough... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Explain how offering Linux in Windows locks "people into cloud computing crap". This is local, nothing to do with the cloud.

      They obviously can't lock you in because Ubuntu/Suse/Fedora have always been available outside of Windows... I don't even know how you came up with that bullshit.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    28. Re:Strangely enough... by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 2

      Seriously? Breaking vmware-tools is your complaint? Who uses those anymore?

      Install the open-vm-tools and open-vm-tools-desktop packages and let DKMS handle rebuilding the kernel modules for you. Even VMWare recommends using their open source tools over the vmware-tools from their CD images these days.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    29. Re:Strangely enough... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Because if I'm doing testing, I actually want a real kernel there. This sounds like a bare-minimum set up for ELF binaries, and in no way is an actual full-pop Linux install.

      I have a couple of images; Debian and FreeBSD, which I can bring up in Hyper-V or VirtualBox, and I can have a fully functional *nix system up and running in a few minutes. I have no need for something that runs "bash.exe"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    30. Re:Strangely enough... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      A VM running on the same architecture as the host (in other words, not an emulated CPU) has pretty damn close to native performance as well. What's your point?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    31. Re:Strangely enough... by tepples · · Score: 1

      How many real Linux developers are on Windows and have trouble with running a VM, or a separate box?

      "Separate box" is not practical on a laptop, and last I checked, subnotebooks maxed out at a paltry 4 GB of RAM.

      Wouldn't someone developing for Linux want the real Linux kernel?

      Not for someone who targets GNU in general, caring little whether it's GNU/Linux, GNU/Windows, or GNU/kFreeBSD for that matter. A developer might work with three environments: a production server, a desktop PC at the office configured to resemble production as closely as possible, and a laptop on which to work on a reasonably close replica while riding the bus or train to and from the office.

      Surely Microsoft would introduce some "extra" features that are addictively sweet into it's Linux ABI.

      Would it release source code for said features, or at least enough of the spec to allow independent reimplementation within Linux proper? If not, I'd need to see examples of such "extra" features to see exactly how they could be kept proprietary.

    32. Re:Strangely enough... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      last I checked, subnotebooks maxed out at a paltry 4 GB of RAM.

      A quick google search shows otherwise.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re: Strangely enough... by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Did you have to use USB drives with VirtualBox? Nothing but fucking hassle.

    34. Re: Strangely enough... by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Then fuck off, it's not for you and we don't give a shit about you, so we don't care what you do.

    35. Re: Strangely enough... by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand how much Window$ 10 relies on the internet to properly function. Have you noticed how 2017 laptops still only have 4GB of RAM and 1.2 Gz processing? Cloud computing; anything bought made by M$ in the last few years is notorious for this. A lot of it is stupid little things just for statistic purposes, but it is still a breach in privacy. Using the Linux that a proprietary company provides to you (Linux Foundation members, so they can) means that anything you do on it still ultimately falls under the proprietor, much like a Russian doll within a doll and the largest doll still has all the control it wants, having nothing to do with license.

      Micro$oft has been pushing incredibly hard trying to get people to use their software as opposed to true FOSS. Most of Micro$oft's applications phone home to the internet and many of them use cloud computing while true Linux does not do any of this, ergo it is a trap or maybe a "fishnet" is a better visual. It's a security risk that otherwise wouldn't be there if anything. By creating a dependency like this, it "locks" people into paying for something they can get as a free standalone, and they have no way of looking at the code to see what is actually going on.

      Cloud computing puts the control out of the user's hands. Ubunut/Suse/Fedora do not use these practices on their desktop versions as of yet and people will mistake the Window$/Linux combo as a convenience that offers the same things. And the way Ubuntu has been partnering with them, they'll give up on making their own distro eventually and just have a Windows/Ubuntu combo, but the company with the most money will have the final say. I know this because the older Debian folk are dying out, Ubuntu is the "cool" system to use, and Ubuntu's millennial users, which are most of them, (ie the future of Linux) could give a crap less if that happened.

      I know you don't believe that M$ is that far into cloud computing just yet, but they definitely will be very soon, and they are even releasing their own line of laptops much similar to Chromebooks, which would most definitely verify what I'm ranting about because when they realize people will be dumb enough to buy them, they will not go back to a traditional internet-free desktop. They will get people to pay more for less while letting software developers to get lazy and use their platforms out of "convenience." With cloud computing as a requirement, that would be called a monopoly, hence the "locking." M$ will have the final say with what you can do with their product and having Linux built-in as a subsystem will not rectify that, especially if they decide to do something at the hardware level, to which manufacturers have been caught doing multiple times already.

    36. Re: Strangely enough... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      No, what is your point? You keep using terms that acknowledge the WSL method is at least slightly better than VM, in multiple ways.

      Is VM actually better in any way (besides "I already have a good VM setup and don't want to change")?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    37. Re:Strangely enough... by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that Android is Linux-based and generally easier to compile on Linux.

      Android makes Microsoft a lot of money on patents, so bringing Android development more and more onto Windows plays to their advantage.

      That said, I still use a VM with Ubuntu for building LineageOS for my phone since it's not officially supported.

    38. Re:Strangely enough... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Never heard of any of that. I've never talked to VMware, I only use what IT put on my box. I am just a user, I am not IT and have not attended the classes on how to do this, I just want to get work done. It does not work for me and I'm technically very savvy. All online docs refer to versions of vmware I don't have, or talks about ubuntu instead of kubuntu, or is relevant to Windows VMware instead of OSX VMware (Fusion). There is ZERO documentation that came with VMware, how would I know about all of this? I don't know what VMware recommends, I don't read their newsletters, but in all the VMware forums searches I've made on the issue no one ever said to avoid vmware tools. I don't see how your "help" is helpful unless you just want to mock someone for not knowing the same esoterica that you do.

    39. Re: Strangely enough... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Your entire premise is this:

      I don't think you understand how much Window$ 10 relies on the internet to properly function.

      But that is completely false. Does Windows 10 absolutely, 100% require the Internet for any function that existed in previous versions, which in those versions did not require the Internet? No.

      Yes, Microsoft does cloud computing. Yes, they want you to do it. No, you are not required to do it. Stop acting like you are.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    40. Re:Strangely enough... by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

      I'm technically very savvy.
                              I'm technically very savvy.
                                                              I'm technically very savvy.

      Uhhh, yeah, sure.
      1: Can't be bothered to read free online documentation for the tool you are using.
      2: can't figure out that the host doesn't matter when the problems are related to the tools installed on the guest OS....
      3: can't figure out what to do "since I use Ubuntu with a different default desktop, when everything else is quite literally the same"
      4: open-vm-tools is recommended all over the forums from the little I have glanced at them.
      5: same as #4 except it is all over the forums AND knowledgebase / ask Ubuntu places for all of the Ubuntu based releases AND any half braindead search with your favorite search engine for these issues...
      6:??????

      7: revel in own ignorance.

      So yeah, that bit of "esoteric" knowledge seems to have been disseminated quite far. Even a half-assed search that takes 2 minutes would have gotten you the information to make your life easier for quite some time.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    41. Re:Strangely enough... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Surely Microsoft would introduce some "extra" features that are addictively sweet into it's Linux ABI

      Microsoft doesn't have a Linux ABI, even in their 'subsystem for linux'. Ubuntu or RedHat or whoever have their kernel and that kernel runs on top of the Windows kernel.

      Just like Microsoft did with Java a decade and a half ago -- in violation of the agreement Microsoft signed with Sun -- and got sued for it and cost them $1.2 Billion.

      That's different, ultimately WORA proved to be a crapfest because you were limited to the functionality that Java offered and even that wasn't consistent across platforms. Even when it was tried again with Android people just ended up screaming out for custom APIs and an NDK because Google ended up in the same boat when faced with Java's limitations.

      Surely nice, friendly Microsoft wouldn't want you to get hooked on something that doesn't exist in the real Linux, and therefore makes you consider deploying Windows in production?

      Even if they did do that and create something so good and so essential that developers got to the point of needing it and so much so that they don't care that it doesn't work on the existing infrastructure and so they get it ripped out and replace it with more costly Windows systems. That would have to be some pretty incredible feature but why exactly could it not then have an implementation in Linux?

    42. Re:Strangely enough... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Many Linux server developers run Windows. This way they don't need a separate machine or VM.

      You're confused. Many Windows developers develop and run under Linux first. You don't want to develop under Microsoft if you can help it. It'll cost you a lot of time. Only if windows is all you know, then you wouldn't be running Linux at all.

    43. Re:Strangely enough... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. This is not about targeting serious Linux developers. This is about targeting all the Python, Ruby, Node.js etc crowd, who are currently using Macs, because they want a fancy UI, but they also need (or at least prefer) a Unix-like userspace.

      If you go to Hacker News and read the comments on this same news story, every third one is, "I'm seriously considering dumping my Mac now". Which is exactly the point.

    44. Re:Strangely enough... by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      Bull.

      Nobody does this by choice. If they have this set up, it is because they have been forced to by management or company policies or because they also support windows users in the office.

      Nobody uses windows when they understand Linux very well.

    45. Re: Strangely enough... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Everybody at my workplace who develops for Linux uses Windows for a variety of reasons, including me. And I also use Windows at home.

      There certainly are people who use nothing but Linux, also for good reason. I have at various times. But a huge number of applications are still only written for Windows (or Windows+macOS) whose alternatives either don't exist or are less adequate in a number of ways.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    46. Re:Strangely enough... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I feel you Darinbob, he's being a dick. VM's are easy, but a native tool that IT could support would be easier still, i don't see why that knots up his jockeys.

      I support Linux all day every day, but I run Windows machine because I don't have time to dick around getting all the company tools to work.

      It's easier to run a remote Linux box that I can connect to use for linux stuff. A VM would need to hibernate properly and bogs down the junk laptop i get from my company.

    47. Re:Strangely enough... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I am a Linux Admin who runs a windows laptop. I just connect to my Linux management box for Linux tools. I have a low power laptop with no admin rights. It also has a smaller SSD. I don't want to manage windows. It's just a terminal to get to my Linux stuff.

      I am also an experienced Windows / Citrix Admin, but at my current job there is a separate team for that stuff.

  2. Welcome to our new corporate overlords by passionplay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has everyone forgotten: embrace, extend, extinguish? This is just step one.

    1. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by bettodavis · · Score: 2

      Given the beating Linux has given to the other server OSes and its near total dominance there, I find it doubtful they could follow that approach. If they tried that sneaky backstabbing approach, nothing prevents Linux to fork into other distros keeping whatever makes Linux tick with its users alive.

      And Linux has never been dominant in the desktop either, so this actually may increase the number of users in that space.

    2. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by TWX · · Score: 1

      This is the alternate path to that goal though.

      Get developers that are used to working with Linux-based servers accustomed to a hybrid environment, and get managers that are not exactly happy with the Linux-based approach requiring the use of brain power to evaluate to make decisions now instead have more means to present pretty graphs. Eventually people push to start running real servers this way, and then to migrate to Windows entirely.

      The problem with GUI is that while it makes some tasks legitimately easier, it also gives the false impression to people that they too have what it takes to administer stuff. Unfortunately this means people who are no more technically skilled than regular users now try to admin stuff and inevitably they break it or misconfigure it because while they can navigate an easy-to-use GUI, they have no idea how it works under the surface.

      I've seen people not understand that sometimes software gives back erroneous or incorrect error messages, so they spend inordinate amounts of time trying to fix the wrong problem. Most recent example I can think of was an auth error on a WIFI setup through Cisco ISE and Radius through to the Active Directory domain. The error reported by ISE and the WLC was about the wrong password, but the actual problem was with shared credentials used by numerous machines, where some weird Apple bug was causing the password to be sent wrong sometimes, so it would occasionally lock-out the credentials, but the AD->Radius->ISE->Controller->WAP path lost the true nature of the error in-translation so people spent weeks chasing down the wrong problem, when in reality the problem was solely with Apple.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Total dominance in the Server world? Please. You must think "little apache servers on the Internet" is the "Server Market". Some of you guys are so completely clueless about the real world.

      Linux is obviously a huge piece of the market, but "total dominance"? Not out here in reality where the rest of us live.

    4. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You need a monopoly in the relevant field to Embrace Extend and Extinguish. MS lacks that in any field of Linux worth extending and extinguishing (server and cloud).

    5. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is just a matter of time. Windows application servers are already becoming a constant problem in many application landscapes. They always need something special, when Linux, xBSD, Solaris, etc. basically use the same services and tools. And the are always helpless when you just explain the standard approach to them and they are expected to port that to the island of incompatibility that Windows still is. Sure, initially these solutions may sometimes be cheaper, but with a bit of a longer-term scope, Windows on the server is a huge and avoidable cost factor. Nobody that needs security, reliability and performance is moving to Windows servers, but some are moving away from them.

      The client is a different matter, but I know of several large enterprises that will go to web-terminals running something from the UNIX-space when Windows7 becomes too expensive to keep secure and working. Except for MS Office and Outlook, they are 100% web-based anyways already.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by bettodavis · · Score: 1

      Found the Azure guy.

      Should we assume that Google, Amazon and many others only run their business on small Linux boxes with Apache?

    7. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      You don't need a monopoly. If you HAD a monopoly, you wouldn't have to worry about extinguishing anything. You just have to have SOME portion of the user-base.

      Hell, let's say that the boys at Ubuntu decided the next release would use NTFS and followed Microsoft's standard and protocol. And then 2 years later decided to add a fancy dancy feature of an added bit to every bloody folder declaring the contents were free(asinbeer) or not. Let's further pretend that at least SOME people loved this extended feature. Now they're using Linus's NTFS(withFreeBit). Then Microsoft releases an update to NTFS as they do. Linus just doesn't bother updating his branch, and extinguishes it. Everyone who was locked into that branch now gets the fun fun joy of migrating away or lingering on an old broken and unloved branch.

      The only difference is the number of people that would buy into Linus's branch of NTFS is hella smaller than Microsoft's branch of Bash or whatever. But any portion of user-base you fuck over with fragmented and extinguished code-base is damage to the community.

      If you have a monopoly and can get EVERYONE to switch to your branch which you then run off a cliff, then you've killed the whole thing.

    8. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by spongman · · Score: 1

      and the correct response to this? not sure, but i'm pretty sure getting your tin-foil hat out is step one.

    9. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sure you do. Without the monopoly you can only embrace. If you still have money you can extend, but in order to bridge from extend to extinguish you need support from either third parties or customers. Without a significant control over the market no extinguishing takes place.

      only difference is the number of people

      You say the only difference, I say the *critical* difference. You can't extinguish an opponent if you don't have an incredibly dominant position from which to do so.

    10. Re:Welcome to our new corporate overlords by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      But you could still do this if you had 5% of the user base. It just wouldn't haven't as much of an effect. ... My entire point was that there's a sliding scale and it's not black and white. And that MS can still attempt a EEE campaign.

  3. Great idea! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    The Windows Store should be graced with every Linux distro. Only a few thousand of 'em, right? ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Great idea! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Only a thousand? Back in the early daze of slashdot, the word was that there were more Linux distributions than Linux users.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  4. Think of it this way by passionplay · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Step 1. Make Linux compatbile on Windows
    Step 2. Teach children that learn on the ubiquitous windows that Linux runs on Windows
    Step 3. Those children when they grow up, think Linux is something to run on Windows
    Step 4. When Microsoft pulls the plug, the children don't think they've lost anything.

    This is exactly how the RIAA and the MPAA have eroded copyright in the US.

  5. Assimilate them, don't let them assimilate us by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Informative

    Run Windows in a VM on Linux, don't run Linux apps on Windows.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Assimilate them, don't let them assimilate us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't run windows at all. That was the whole point.

    2. Re:Assimilate them, don't let them assimilate us by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      With UEFI and Intel's "Management Engine" built into the microprocessor, PCs are turning fully into a prison camp. Pre-compromised, in the hardware, right from the factory.

      No fear, Linux is already running on other processors. And ARM processors already outnumber Intel / AMD processors, just not in PCs. And ARM processors inevitably run Linux, not that Microsoft hasn't failingly tried to get Windows on it.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Assimilate them, don't let them assimilate us by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Arm also has a secret CPU underneath it's main CPU and uses firmware just like Intel.

    4. Re:Assimilate them, don't let them assimilate us by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You can run any Linux distro you want on WSL, even today. After all, all it really is, is an emulator of the kernel (specifically, its syscalls) - the userspace is whatever you want it to be. The only new story here is that there are some distros that are officially supported and that can be installed from the Store with a couple of clicks. Right now, the only one such is Ubuntu.

  6. Re:But... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're appealing to the market that wants spyware for Linux but can't seem to find any, so they're going to just run Linux as a subsystem of the spyware. Fairly ingenius, if you think about it.

  7. Yes Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The security of Windows with the application availability of Linux.

    That combination simply cannot be beat!

    1. Re:Yes Finally! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Use Windows on the Application Server. Use Linux on the Desktop. That way each system is used for what it is best at.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Yes Finally! by TWX · · Score: 1

      I laughed, if it's any consolation.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  8. Re:But... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gamers. Like it or not Windows is where PC gaming happens, and many/most major titles only ship for Windows, never for Linux. So people need a native Windows install, but if they want to run Linux they can do it in WSL and have the best of both worlds.

  9. Can you say SuSE! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I haven't used SuSE since the late 1990's. It was one of my favorite Linux distro. These days I'm using Red Hat Linux as I may study for the certification and Linux Mint on my vintage black MacBook.

    1. Re:Can you say SuSE! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Man, you bring up that black macbook every single opportunity you have.

      It's a legendary Apple product. I get a lot of attention when I bring it into the Apple Store. Most people have heard of the black MacBook but haven't actually seen one since the white MacBook was more common.

  10. Linux on desktop... by nerdyalien · · Score: 3, Funny

    Linux on desktop... finally arrives in 2017 !!!

    1. Re:Linux on desktop... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Linux on the desktop arrived a long time ago, it's called ChromeOS.

      GNU/Linux is another matter.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Linux on desktop... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Chromebooks have already outsold Windows laptops on Amazon for years.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Linux on desktop... by tepples · · Score: 1

      But if you put Ubuntu on a Chromebook, the Chromebook firmware asks the user at every boot to put it out of its misery. The suggested call to action in developer mode ("Press SPACE" then "Press ENTER") leads to data loss.

  11. And so what? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm still struggling to understand the use case for this.

    Everyone who really needed Windows and Linux on one box has already setup dual-boot or virtualization. You can even pick which OS to use on bare metal and which to virtualize these days. It's great.

    Does Microsoft envision themselves selling Linux apps in the Windows Store (like they sell MySQL and PostgreSQL on Azure)? I don't see that working because anyone can distribute a free version outside of the store.

    Telemetry in Windows 7/8/10 proves that Microsoft is perfectly willing to sell out their customers for a marginal benefit. But I don't really see what benefit WSL gives them that they don't already get with Hyper-V.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re: And so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its because Microsoft plans on forcing vendors to lock out Linux in secure boot. This way Microsoft can say "but all your Linux apps run on our platform so you won't lose anything. Plus its more secure because everyone knows that bios malware is the most common threat to the average PC user." If you run Linux applications on Windows it ruins the point of running Linux apps which is exactly the point of Windows trying to coerce users into doing it.

    2. Re:And so what? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I'm still struggling to understand the use case for this. Everyone who really needed Windows and Linux on one box has already setup dual-boot or virtualization. You can even pick which OS to use on bare metal and which to virtualize these days. It's great.

      IIRC (and it's kind of vague) one of the more interesting ideas in the architecture of Windows is that binary execution in general is done within a "subsystem for " - the primary subsystem being for Windows (of course), but there was also a subsystem for DOS at one point, with the 'capability' to have a subsystem for other OSes (Like VMS, Unix, OS/2, what have you...). I seem to recall the idea was so Windows could be a "Universal" OS, provided somebody wrote an appropriate subsystem. That way Windows is able to be universally efficient in its use of system resources, task scheduling, etc.

      I kind of like that part of the design, but it was (obviously) never really used until now because Microsoft's policy became "only Windows everywhere" -- so the feature was never really used.

      This appears to be the first time in a while I've heard of Microsoft actually using this OS feature for a 'foreign' environment. It's academically interesting to me, and I can see some advantages - for example, you don't have to pay a virtualization penalty; execution is more like running a container instead of a virtualized OS.

      Will I ever use it... probably not. But I suspect it's really just a case of "leaking" into Windows 10 from work done to make Azure more competitive by running an environment customers want, while running the OS that Microsoft demands.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    3. Re:And so what? by lkcl · · Score: 2

      I'm still struggling to understand the use case for this.

      in 2006 i worked for NC3A Research, where windows had been made mandatory some years before (through offering them a uniform pricing discount... that of course did not involve future products. or upgrades). this made it an absolute bitch to do any kind of development, so i investigated installing a wide range of software, including Cygwin, MSYS and other tools which made my life bearable. i even at one point installed userspace linux.

      being able to install straight debian on top of the POSIX subsystem would have been great. so yes: where organisations are stupid enough to have been fooled by microsoft and have forcibly made specific OSes mandatory, even for developers, being able to say "oh yeah, these are just apps, sir" is a huge relief.

    4. Re:And so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > but it was (obviously) never really used until now
      It's been used extensively throughout Windows NT's history - The original subsystems were 32-bit Windows, DOS, OS/2 and POSIX. Later they dropped OS/2 and added the Win64 subsystem, and recently dropped the POSIX subsystem and added the Linux subsystem. It's just that nobody really talked about this feature of Windows very much - if you knew about it you were using some of the more advanced SDKs and had a good Microsoft support contract so you didn't need stack overflow. Cutler's Windows NT book was probably the best widely-available introduction but it's been out of print for years.

    5. Re:And so what? by dgaller · · Score: 1

      It's so they can start winning back developers from OSX/Ubuntu. Things like Node.js will be on the Windows Store and WSL also covers all the "wget -O- ... | sudo sh" software that doesn't bother supporting Windows.

    6. Re: And so what? by passionplay · · Score: 1

      Yep. They use the Microsoft issued keys.

    7. Re:And so what? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Everyone who really needed Windows and Linux on one box has already setup dual-boot or virtualization.

      I don't. I don't have the space disk space for it. You want a use case? WSL seems to run a shitload better and integrate much more easily with Windows than Cygwin. Remember Cygwin? That open source program widely used which does the same thing as WSL? That program which has had many use cases over the years? Yeah that one.

    8. Re: And so what? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2

      SecureBoot isn't designed primarily to stop BIOS malware. It is designed to prevent rootkits from tampering with the boot sector and OS bootstrap by validating the signatures on all executables it loads. That way, you know you have a good kernel before you hand off to it. Technically, a rootkit could still infect those files, but the system will not boot again after that happens.

      RedHat has a signed bootloader that works with most OEM PCs out of the box, and you can import the keys for other distros if they choose to sign their binaries.

      If you compile from source (either manually or by installing Gentoo), then you must handle the signing yourself or disable SecureBoot.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    9. Re:And so what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can even pick which OS to use on bare metal and which to virtualize these days. It's great.

      It is almost magical being able to boot your installed windows OS in vmware from your linux partition, isn't it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. the echochamber that is slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It may come as a surprise to the obviously `l33t Linux fans that populate slashdot, but many of us spend all day every day working in and supporting Windows.

    I need to use Linux a few times a week, and it is a lot easier for me to type bash.exe and do what I need to do than it is to launch a VM. Especially when enabling WSL on Windows is 3 checkboxes and takes 5 minutes.

    1. Re:the echochamber that is slashdot by TWX · · Score: 1

      And I'm the opposite. I spend 95% of my time in Linux as SSH is my most heavily used application, probably followed by the TFTP server, and the scripting that I wrote to admin the 2700 devices I work with.

      I have to go into Windows to manage certain specific domain functions, and for some specific network devices that require proprietary Windows programs to easily administer. For those latter devices in theory the manufacturer is going HTML5 in the next code release, so I'll have even less need for Windows at that point.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:the echochamber that is slashdot by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I certainly could use Bash in Windows, providing it had hooks into the Operating System so I can replace those horrific Powershell scripts. But I suspect this is very much a one-way street.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. Re:But... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >but if they want to run Linux they can do it in WSL and have the best of both worlds.

    In which world does this count as 'running linux'? It's like saying your linux distro which has WINE installed is 'running Windows'.

  14. This could be a big win for users of Free Software by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    If this allows end users to install Sandstorm, and the project becomes popular because of it, it could be a big push for open source & Free software.

    A big hurdle to overcome for using 95% web applications found in Git is managing to install them in the first place, if you don't already have a web development stack running in your desktop.

    With a platform like Sandbox, anyone could install server-based web applications on their Windows PC, making using Free Software finally as convenient as any walled garden app store.

    For every time you here a developer saying "people should really run their own server and keep their data there", this could be a step in the right direction to make this really happen.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  15. Re:Slackware in the Windows Store by TWX · · Score: 1

    You mean like installing Cygwin or MobaXterm?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  16. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. by flajann4415 · · Score: 1

    Beware of Microsoft.

  17. WSL? No, thanks. by johnpagenola · · Score: 1

    On Windows 10 I used Bash (WSL) for Linux use and Hyper-V for a Windows 7 VM I need. The system crashed so hard that it could not be repaired, restored or resuscitated in any way. In a sick way I was amused when Bash was reclassified as Beta and removed from the Long Term Servicing Base (LTSB) not long after my system crashed. The official MS line was that WSL was included in LTSB by accident. Somebody was as stupid as I was and thought WSL was ready for the real world. I reinstalled Windows 10 from scratch (I have to use it for work) and now use VirtualBox for both the Windows 7 VM and now an Ubuntu Server VM (which I ssh into from Windows 10). I now have no problems, plus the video with VirtualBox is much better than the video with Hyper-V.

    1. Re:WSL? No, thanks. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      video with VirtualBox is much better than the video with Hyper-V.

      have you tried vmware for comparison? I haven't run it on anything later than win7

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Opposites. by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many real Linux developers are on Windows and have trouble with running a VM, or a separate box?

    The opposite also happens :
    There are a few scientific fields where nearly everybody uses Linux (e.g.: Life-science research - bioinformatics, etc.)
    The servers and clusters run Linux.
    The devs run Linux (or Linux VM on laptops with unusual hardware) (or sometime stay on MacOS X because it's still a type of Unix and "Good Enoug" for them).
    So the dev write Linux software that end-up being run on Linux compute nodes.

    BUT... there are a few research labs with users stuck on Windows (usually the wet labs guys).
    They might need to do some data pre-processing locally before uploading onto the cluster (e.g.: because the un-processed files are way to big).

    Here there used to be only 2 options :

    - the wetlab people install an Ubuntu VM on their machine and run the Linux software this way.
    (it's not trivial. Again, we're not talking about the devs or sysadmins, we're talking about the wet lab researchers)
    (at least some dev release ready-to-use virtual appliances)

    - the dev recompile a windows version using Cygwin.
    (but unlike a Linux to Mac OS X port, these tend to be non-trivial, even if you use a full blown POSIX abstraction layer (cygwin) instead of a minimalistic compiéer (mingw) or... gasp... the native Visual Studio)

    Now WSL offers a third option :
    - just download the Linux version and run it using Bash.EXE

    In otherwords : the consumer of software can also have an advantage by using WSL - when in a Linux dominated field (e.g.: research) and not wanting to fumble with Linux/VM installation.

    Surely Microsoft would introduce some "extra" features that are addictively sweet into it's Linux ABI. Just like Microsoft did with Java a decade and a half ago -- in violation of the agreement Microsoft signed with Sun -- and got sued for it and cost them $1.2 Billion. Surely nice, friendly Microsoft wouldn't want you to get hooked on something that doesn't exist in the real Linux, and therefore makes you consider deploying Windows in production?

    There's a difference :

    - back then, in the target market (enterprise servers), Microsoft's own servers (Windows NT OS, running Microsoft IIS web server, etc.) had a significant market share, next to Sun's own Unix machines (solaris, etc.)

    So, devs working with Microsoft tools, will end up producing things that work better on the Microsoft servers than on Sun's (due to different extensions) : will lead to some preferences toward the Microsoft servers. (The code just works better here, let's buy more of these).

    In other words: The Microsoft E.E.E strategy can work, because there's an actual market share that they can favour while extending the standard as per the second E.

    Nowadays, in the target market (Cloud, embed, etc. - i.e.: everything except the desktop) Linux is nearly omni-present.
    (With maybe the sole exception of Windows instances being available on the Azure Cloud, I've hear. Does anybody really use those ?)

    Now imagine a developer producing a Linux software with Microsoft's extensions that require WSL.
    Developer tries it on their cluster/webserver/cloud/raspberry pi/cubesat/whatever... and it doesn't work. Well, to bad. Developer tosses the useless crap and moves on.

    In other words, you need an actual monopoly (or even at least some significative market presence) to leverage for the Extend phase to actually work.
    Otherwise you're just "that werid company with a non-working product".

    Actually, this time, if you think about it, Microsoft is the one on the receiving side.
    Linux kernel is developped *extremely fast*, by a very vast community.
    On the other hand, Microsoft is only throwing a small finite number of developers at this, and has only currently implemented the strict minimum subset of Linux ABI calls to enable some ELFs to run natively. There are still ton

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Opposites. by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or just be at a corporation where they use MS Exchange Server so that you need Office tools, or Skype for Business is in common use. That's hard to get working properly on Linux (even on OSX these are substandard implementation, and Visio isn't even available). Windows is entrenched in the enterprise for a reason, and that's not because they hate Linux.

    2. Re:Opposites. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Or just be at a corporation where they use MS Exchange Server

      We use Exchange where I work, but in the nine years I've been here, I've only had Outlook installed for maybe the first month. I had Thunderbird up and running fairly quickly for email. The calendar wasn't as important for me, so I dealt with it through OWA until I figured out DavMail and Lightning. I'm running Windows 7 on the desktop, but Outlook has historically been such a steaming heap (it only supports one inbox, and it pretty much forces you to top-post) that I want nothing to do with it.

      I wouldn't have Office installed at all, if not for some ancient databases I'm stuck maintaining for which only an Access front end exists. (One of 'em is old enough to require Access 2003...nothing newer works. FML.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    3. Re:Opposites. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's true, OWA can work. I really hate it though, the interface is the worst for any web based email I've used. I have had cases where someone in a corporation has used the extra features of Outlook, which means you need Outlook to read it correctly. And calendar is vital in many organizations. A smartphone can help but often there are attachments to a meeting invite which are difficult to read on a phone, and difficult to get back to your computer from the phone. I think the calendar is the primary reason Outlook is still in use.

  19. This is bad for Linux by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is harmful to Linux, otherwise Microsoft would not be involved. Its not Linux at all, since you are just running some userland tools on Windows. Something that gives people a reason to not run the fully open source Linux kernel is not healthy for Linux, or open source. Microsofts hope with this is to starve the Linux kernel of userbase by giving people a reason to not install Linux, why install Linux when you can get the userland installed as an app on windows? None of the distros should cooperate with this. Instead, efforts should focus on funding efforts to get WINE to where it can run 99% of windows apps flawlessly.

    1. Re:This is bad for Linux by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      Instead, efforts should focus on funding efforts to get WINE to where it can run 99% of windows apps flawlessly.

      IBM accomplished this with OS/2 during the Windows 3.1 era, and developers stopped writing programs for OS/2. The simple reasoning was, "If OS/2 can run Windows programs, why develop for OS/2? We'll just develop for Windows." So, in essence, OS/2 was the first version of WINE. WINE has always been a terrible idea, and we all need to be thankful that it sucks at running Windows programs.

      The best way to get people to adopt Linux is to get them using FOSS while they're still on Windows. That will build them a bridge to Linux, as all their FOSS software and data will transfer seamlessly.

    2. Re:This is bad for Linux by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Alternative perspective is that it significantly expands the target audience for all those userland tools. Which is where most of the code and developer activity actually is.

  20. Is Canonical getting paid? by dottrap · · Score: 1

    Is Microsoft paying Canonical for all this? As I understand it, the Linux subsystem for Windows required Ubuntu up until now. Seems like this would entail some kind of licensing agreement for Ubuntu.

    So I wonder if Microsoft is paying Canonical. If the number is large enough, Microsoft could ultimately influence the direction Ubuntu takes.

  21. Eliminate the middle-man by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    and run your favorite flavor of Linux on the bare metal, it will not only run better it also wont be any complicated layers of Microsoft problems or vulnerabilities that MS is so famous for

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Eliminate the middle-man by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      then i want to know who is developing Linux software from within windows so i can avoid it in the future

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Eliminate the middle-man by spongman · · Score: 1

      yeah! dual-boot!

      for the convenience.

  22. windows in Linux not Linux in Windows by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    Linux in Windows will doubtless leak data through various hooks to the Windows Data collection centre just like Regular Windows 10. I have little confidence in my privacy or security in anything windows 10 related (which is why I do Linux, native)

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  23. Here in corporate windows desktop land, I love WSL by furry_wookie · · Score: 5, Informative



    Everyone is saying "run a VM".

    Well I have that as well, but frankly being able to fire up an Ubuntu shell in a window has made me much more productive. It has replaced using putty, winscp, notepad++, TortoiseGIT, and god knows what else I used to have to do just to get stuff done when stuck with the corporate standard Windows desktop.

    It is my main interface now to ssh to systems to support them, transfer files back and forth to my desktop, edit files, use git, etc.

    I am quite addicted to WSL now myself. It would be even better if there were multiple distros to chose from such as RHEL, Centos, Fedora, Debian etc in addition to Ubuntu.

    --
    -- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
  24. Re:Here in corporate windows desktop land, I love by Shompol · · Score: 1

    Not easy, since 99% of employers deploy Windows, and OS is not the top consideration in the process of changing employers. In fact, I got a permission to convert my second desktop to Linux but so far found no use for it, since the rest of the company is all Windows servers.

  25. Re:Here in corporate windows desktop land, I love by Shompol · · Score: 1

    I have been using Cygwin and ssh for some time. There is some file permission compatibility and username letter case headache, but it mostly works otherwise. We are still on Windows 7 though.

  26. Laptops warranted for Linux tend to cost more by tepples · · Score: 1

    If the case was that Linux costs a lot of money to run

    On a laptop, it does. A System76 or ZaReason laptop, which is warranted to run GNU/Linux, costs more than an entry-level Staples special that is warranted to run Windows.

    1. Re:Laptops warranted for Linux tend to cost more by tepples · · Score: 1

      If the laptops in a particular showroom are not labeled as compatible with GNU/Linux, how should one determine which laptops in the showroom are compatible without having to make one trip to the showroom to write down model numbers, a trip home to look them up, and a second trip to the showroom to try the display and keyboard of the compatible ones?

    2. Re:Laptops warranted for Linux tend to cost more by tepples · · Score: 1

      Please describe the steps of "the work" so that others reading this discussion can determine how much effort you deem appropriate.

    3. Re:Laptops warranted for Linux tend to cost more by tepples · · Score: 1

      I'm asking for a way to search the inventory of local computer showrooms by the property "does Linux work" without having to look it up individually for each of several dozen models.

    4. Re:Laptops warranted for Linux tend to cost more by tepples · · Score: 1

      Of the three most recent AC replies, this appears the most civil and most useful.

      Go to your local computer showroom and ask them that question.

      I was hoping that other Slashdot users had recently purchased a laptop in a store and were willing to share their experiences.

      What is a "local computer showroom"?

      For many in the United States, this is Walmart, Best Buy, or Staples. Usually, the display model computers are not associated to any wireless network. I generally trust public Wi-Fi when accessing HTTPS sites because the only things an eavesdropper can see are hostnames and sizes, but I remember Walmart and Best Buy not offering in-store Wi-Fi. (The only Wi-Fi in the Walmart near me is the hotspot in the adjacent Subway restaurant, which is too far from the laptop section for consistent reception.) I admit that this gives Staples an advantage over Walmart and Best Buy. Though I will make a note to update my original research within the next couple weeks and ask a sales associate specifically about Linux, I don't expect much out of it because I imagine that sales associates are trained to remain silent about issues like this in order to avoid making an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

      I own a smartphone running Android OS, which came with a one-month trial of cellular data on T-Mobile. But this trial has long since expired. it lacks a cellular data plan. I also own a Wi-Fi only tablet. So the advantage of Windows is that the user doesn't have to first pay for a cellular data plan to find a compatible laptop to try. Even the upgrade from Windows 10 S to Windows 10 Pro is cheaper than a couple month of cellular data in the U.S. market.

    5. Re: Laptops warranted for Linux tend to cost more by tepples · · Score: 1

      The least effort way to do this is look at lappys that are sold with Linux on them eg system76, some clevo system builders , some Dell boxes.

      As I wrote above: "A System76 or ZaReason laptop, which is warranted to run GNU/Linux, costs more than an entry-level Staples special that is warranted to run Windows." This price difference is in fact greater than the $50 to register Windows 10 S, which ships on the Surface Laptop and could be considered a reduced-functionality trial of Windows 10.

  27. Workstation in transit by tepples · · Score: 1

    even old farts using a laptop some of them with 8GB RAM max

    RAM is cheap. Cheap. I use 32 GB on my workstation at home, and on each of two workstations at work.

    How much RAM is in the workstation that you use while riding the bus between home and work?

    1. Re:Workstation in transit by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I don't use a workstation between home and work. I realize you highlight laptop. But I don't use one. So I take your point. Maybe there are some people who would use Windows Subsystem for Linux. But I think they are setting themselves up for trouble. See my other posts in this topic.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  28. Re:This could be a big win for users of Free Softw by tepples · · Score: 1

    One problem Sandstorm has is that it needs a wildcard TLS certificate because it generates a unique hostname per session. Let's Encrypt had no plans to issue those last I checked.

  29. Re:This could be a big win for users of Free Softw by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    What problems would that create for end users? Maybe an impossibility to check the origin of the applications installed?

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  30. Re:This could be a big win for users of Free Softw by tepples · · Score: 1

    An impossibility of using sensitive JavaScript APIs that are restricted to secure contexts.

  31. Re:Boycot Required by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Fedora is too close to RedHat, whom have been traitors to FOSS for many years, collaborating with IBM and such (closed-source drivers, you can't change yer kernel config or you lose all support, etc.. I know, I've been forced to work with them..)

    Why do you say that? Fedora has really championed FOSS since the beginning. A lot of what the distros are today are because of RedHat. Such as your wifi - that was RedHat. I could go on and on and on... most of Ubuntu's core stuff was developed at RedHat. So was everyone else's. They donated it for free to us so we all have it.

  32. Oh, charming by SamFooter · · Score: 1

    Microsoft are still trying to be the masters of all computerdom, it seems. I predicted this crap long ago. Their original products are failing, so they are searching for secondary means of staying relevant. Just look at it: Fall Creators Update https://software.informer.com/... tweaking Cortana https://software.informer.com/... making up the new versions of Win 10 to hope and compete with Chrome OS... It's all about the desperate search for relevance.

  33. There's no Linux kernel by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    It's GNU/NT if anything, ultimately an emulator with Micro$oft still having too much control like they've been doing since Window$ 8.