Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Is Now Available On the Windows Store (windowscentral.com)
Ubuntu is now available for download on the Windows Store. "Initially spotted by Rafael Rivera and Necrosoft Core on Twitter, Ubuntu on the Windows Store will let you install and run the Ubuntu terminal on Windows next to your other apps," reports Windows Central. From the report: Ubuntu's arrival, and that of SUSE, are part of a recent push by Microsoft to embrace Linux and the open source community more broadly. This began with the arrival of the Windows Subsystem for Linux in 2016, allowing users to use the Bash shell from within Windows. Keep in mind that this is limited to the Fall Creators Update, which isn't set for a public release until later this year. If you're running a PC testing the Fall Creators Update through the Windows Insider Program, however, you should be able to download and try Ubuntu from the Windows Store just fine.
Then Microsoft needs to release MinWin.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I hate Windows, and don't care for Ubuntu. But if I have to take a job working on Windows, you can bet I'll be looking at this carefully. Stands a good chance of being better than cygwin anyway.
Now I can finally have suspend/resume working on linux. And webcam drivers. And hardware drivers in general.
Ubuntu in the Windows store ?
Whatever.
Get the original.
aaaaaaa
Sure it's not a stack?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is like blackface for operating systems
i got a bad feeling about this......thats no moon ....its bill gates butt in linux space NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The Year of Linux on the Windows Desktop is upon us!
Unlike Steve Ballmer, I understand that Linux is not cancer. It does not contaminate everything it touches. If M$ wants to release MinWin as open source, they are welcome to, but they are not obligated.
However, since M$ is redistributing GPL software, it should lose standing in any patent lawsuit regarding such code.
The only reason that a for-profit company would make overtures like this is if they thought that they had something to gain by doing so, using some business strategy that says that this will help them in the long run. They're not doing it for the sake of the open source community,
412077696e6e657220697320796f7521da
I prefer Linux but don't want it to be the only OS out there. I'm glad there's Windows, OS X, FreeBSD, etc. out there. What would be ideal is more or less equal market share for all of them.
Extend.
Extinguish.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Where shall we queue, sir?
Stands a good chance of being better than cygwin anyway.
A spontaneous bout of diarrhea stands a good chance of being better than cygwin.
It's going to get infected with all kinds of virii and bugs!
One of my proudest achievements was managing to get OpenRADIUS compiled under Cygwin (this was around 2003 or 2004), but what it did teach me is that while Cygwin was at the time the best available solution for running *nix software on Windows, it still sucked horribly. I installed Cygwin again a few years back and found that while some things had been cleaned up, all in all it was still a bloody awful kludge.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
MS's support of Open Source is going to drive all the Linux fan boys into a tizzy. MS has figured out how to merge open source products with their traditional proprietary software products without violating the GPL or other types of licenses. They have open sourced and released .NET Core which is cross platform. The current Windows .NET developers can now use a familiar IDE such as Visual Studio to create cross platform applications. MS is working on an open source cross platform SQL Server product as well. All these initiatives are aimed at narrowing the gap between the MS only ecosystem and the open source ecosystem. In the good ole days MS had to pay a lot of money acquiring technologies developed by others and integrating the technologies into their products. Now as long as they adhere to the licenses attached to open source technologies they don't have to pay a dime.
Purify this store!
They havent changed, if you recall Balmer said he would be happy if all open source happened on top of windows. Now it looks like they are trying to make that happen. So no change at all for the crap company that has crap software and is totally crap. I will never use winblows ever again ever. Nutella can go to hell.
The Cubs have won a World Series, Donald Trump is President of the United States of America and Microsoft is embracing Linux. The end is near......
I always expected to see the year of GNU/Linux on the desktop before seeing the year of it on Microsoft, but I'll take it.
Next, I'd love to see Richard Stallman having dinner with Bill Gates. I believe I have a vivid imagination, but I can't imagine how that dinner would go.
Why install messy and complicated 'linux' when you can get the look and feel within your nice, safe, compatible Windows computer? Silly Linux!
None of the power of Linux and none of the respect for your privacy. Sandboxing Linux under Windows instead of the other way around like it should be. Screw that.
They're working on other distros:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.c...
It will even let you run different distros as the same time.
Microsoft is attempting to do what WINE has done on GNU/Linux systems which is to catch the system calls of applications and redirect them to their own OS system calls. WINE does it because Windows is not open source so they map system calls and even create intermediate software to try and mimic the quirks of the MS Windows OS. But Linux is open source but still Micorosft decided to map GNU/Linux application calls to the OS into the Windows kernel calls.
So, because it doesn't use the Linux kernel, is it still Ubuntu? Do you trust Microsoft to do a better job than the Linus and the Linux kernel?
There is Linux on the Windows store but no Windows in the Linux repos. WE WON !!!
I've been able to run Cygwin for decades. But I prefer to use a real scripting language. The Windows CMD language can do anything for people with grit and determination.
What the world needs is a good implementation of CMD that runs on Unix.
What exactly does this mean? That if I download Ubuntu, I'll have Unity or whatever DE I want, and can download the Steam player and play Steam games on it? Or does it just mean that I can now run a bash shell? I thought that I could do that from PowerShell by just typing 'bash' at the command prompt. So if it's the latter, in what way is it different?
Stands a good chance of being better than cygwin anyway.
A spontaneous bout of diarrhea stands a good chance of being better than cygwin.
You mean: A spontaneous bout of diarrhea in a stalled elevator stands a good chance of being better than cygwin.
lucm, indeed.
This is kind of old news, as the WSL has been out since last summer. I spend about equal time in this environment as I do running an Ubuntu VM.
I am really curious about Linus and RMS's opinion of this environment. I haven't seen it mentioned in interviews yet. RMS might argue it's a GNU-only layer, since there's no actual Linux kernel code running (although it's ABI-compatible).
The Windows virtualization platform already offers a "Linux in a VM" type thing which seems exactly the same as this.
Now I can install Ubuntu under Windows in Parallels on my Mac. If I can get WINE running under that, I can just about go full circle...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1SxZoFmOU
Don't trust Microsoft. Especially after Mr. Nadella said "Just Fucking Trust Us!".
...Extend, Extinguish.
That is like saying that all the people eat I eating lobster at a 4 star restaurant will be upset because it is now possible to have it served to you at the local dump.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It doesn't let you run ANY distros... It lets you run a Bash shell. ... which reminds me, there is no "Ubuntu shell". This is just another way to pollute open source, this time by creating a horde of people who think they are using "Ubuntu on Windows", when they are doing no such thing.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This is not Ubuntu GNU/Linux. It's Ubuntu GNU/NT.
Even though Microsoft calls it "Services for Linux", Linux is just about the only thing that it isn't.
Just run it under windows so we can see all!
Stands a good chance of being better than cygwin anyway.
On some point, it is :
- Cygwin is an attempt for a user-space-level translation layer that provides nearly full POSIX software compatibility while running atop regular Windows.
Means it's constricted by whatever the win32 API has to offer.
e.g.: multi-threading and specially multi-process in windows suck, Cygwin-compiled unix apps will suck on windows.
- Ubuntu on windows (official name "Windows Service for Linux" - WSL) is using the "multiple-personnallity-disorder" of the Windows kernel.
Win32 is just *one* of the API that it can expose. (originally, this was done so OS/2 programs can also run natively under the WinNT kernel simply by also exposing their API as an alternative) (later that was used to provide some Unix-ish API).
Microsoft has re-used a failed project to run Android APPs under windows, so that the Windows kernel can provide a small subset of the same APIs as the Linux kernel to run Linux ELFs natively. That means if there's some in-kernel facility that can help supporting Linux software, they can be leveraged even if they are not exposed as a regular Win32 API.
e.g.: recent Windows kernels have a concept of very lightweight threads called pico threads that can be used to provide the POSIX-threads to linux applications. Meaning that they have much better performance, than if Cygwin tries to translate to the poor Win32 equivalent.
On the other hands :
- Cygwin is about full POSIX compatibility : in theory you should be able to compile any POSIX compilant source and get it to work under Windows.
(real world example: GIMP) - though you still need the source.
- Windows Service for Linux is about just exposing a tiny subset of the Linux API, just the bare necessary minimum so you can get a few command-line tools running as-is.
You can get Apache to run (And that's about one of the few complex software that you can get to run), but not a single API is present to handle graphics so forget about getting GIMP (Unless you use an SSH connection with X forwarding and a Win32 X server).
Forget about EXT4/BTRFS/XFS/etc. filesystems (no direct block device access).
etc.
Basically :
- Cygwin is a translator that converts between Win32 and POSIX API (at the source level) - but some concept maps badly between the two.
- Windows Service for Linux is about teaching the Windows kernel, but it only managed to learn a few key sentences.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It lets you run entire Ubuntu user space. Not sure if X11 runs though. But you can apt-get whatever and build and run CLI-based users pace software.
So run Windows in a VM under Ubuntu which is itself a VM under Windows, since the Microsoft Store doesn't replace Windows or even create a separate partition, but just runs Ubuntu in a VM.
No. That's not possible, that's not how Windows Service for Linux (WSL) works.
(And that's why, as other have pointed, the link points to the official Ubuntu website to get a full blown real-deal Ubuntu Linux).
WSL isn't a virtual machine.
It a different "personnality" of the Windows Kernal, where it speaks a different API than the usual Win32.
(the capability dates backs from the earilest WinNT, used to run OS/2 software natively).
WSL enables the Windows kernel to expose a tiny subset of the APIs exposed by the Linux kernel, so some of ubuntu's ELF executable can run natively. (Mostly a few command-line tools).
bash.exe is actually just a launcher that start this alternative kernel API.
The bash you're seeing is the same actual bash executable as on Ubuntu, but running natively directly on the Windows kernel.
So no, Linux on windows isn't running in a VM, it's windows directly executing the few native linux executable it managed to be compatible with.
Saddly, only a very tiny subset of the Linux API is supported by WSL (stdin/stdout/stderr streams, multi-theading multi-processing, some high level networking (TCP/IP), a 2 special surpose filesystem drivers, and that's about it).
None of the various API needed by virtual box are exposed in WSL (no low-level hardware access to kick in the CPU virtualisation (VT-x and co), no graphics access at all, etc.), so you just can start it.
So you can't run a Windows VM inside an instances of ubuntu running in WSL.
Apache and SSHD are about the most complex task you can get running (that's the whole reason WSL is marketed for : so a web developper can quickly test some server code directly from windows without even needing to start some VM up)
Also, you cannot use the same partition inside VirtualBOX if that's also the same partition the top host of your "piles of VM-turtles all the way down" stack.
You cannot run 2 instances of windows of the same physical media (maybe except if you're running 2 instances of WinPE BootCD of the same CD...) ...), as long as each instance has its own /var mount. And recent advances in systemd vastly diminish the /var requirements).
It's NOT linux, it's definitely not as flexible (in Linux this has been possible nearly from the beginning. That's part of the reasoning behind the standard Unix tree (/usr/,
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
From the windows prompt: bash -c "ssh username@ipaddress" - hey presto, you have an ssh session! No more PuTTY
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Perhaps Microsoft is trying to get people ready for the next version of Windows, which will *Nix based. So many heads would explode...
Will Windows be collecting all the the data I create while running Ubuntu?
> This is just another way to pollute open source, this time by creating a horde of people who think they are using "Ubuntu on Windows", when they are doing no such thing.
Well? I'd bet this will get a number of them to look at and maybe even start using the real thing. Are you such a Linux snob that you think this is NOT a good thing, and you'd rather not see your small elite group grow? Is this what you mean by "polluting open source"? Because I don't see it.
Except that putty is vastly superior to the windows command prompt.
Stands a good chance of being better than cygwin anyway.
But yet they've still managed to make it worse than cygwin. My main gripe is that IO is dog slow. Trying to do a "git pull" on a relatively large repo will just hang. I've never left it long enough to find out how long it would actually take.
X11 stuff works, but it's not "officially" supported.
If you install an X server in Windows, yes, X11 works.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It's not the windows command prompt - it's a full bash prompt. And once you've ssh'd in, you can't tell the difference.
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing