You're falling into the same trap everyone else is. What has been delivered is far from feature complete and the first time you execute bash.exe you get a warning that the software is in beta.
The embrace stage is a loooooong way from being over.
Not expecting to use the GUI or having to deal with a large set of drivers what real advantage is there to use Ubentu vs Debian or Redhat vs Suse...
The difference every distro offers: The package management philosophy and their own home baked management apps (the most obvious of which being the package manager itself).
Not if Facebook wants to do business in that country.
That depends. This was a request to attend. It has no legal weight. There's no reason for a foreign CEO to attend either. The UK has very little political capital around the world right now. Let's see how embargoing a foreign company because their CEO didn't want to come in for a non-legally binding chat goes shall we?
I can't comment on the network development side, but....
It seems really slow. Maybe it's just my imagination, but sometimes I'd do something as simple as an 'ls' and patiently wait.
WSL has bench marked in a variety of use cases (including disk IO) with very similar results to Docker and VMWare. It's certainly not native performance, but it isn't that far from it. ls is instant on my machine, so maybe something went wrong in your install.
There was no GUI support out of the box. I had to setup Xming on the windows side. Again, not super complicated, but it seems like little thought was put into it.
Plenty of thought has been put into it. The big problem here is users expecting software that specifically flashes up as being experimental when you first install it to be feature complete. If you look at what is being added in terms of support with each windows version then you'll see WSL is still under active development. It already has some use cases, why should those people have to wait because it's not ready for all use cases?
Maybe it will get better, but it seems like it's trying to solve a problem most people don't have.
You're firing up a full VM to get access to a few basic tools? Yeah we can bury a screw into wood using a hammer too, but really a small screwdriver will do. Users not having an express problem isn't exactly a reason not to develop something with the goal of offering improvements.
That said the problem isn't just users, it's Microsoft itself. With their goal to be able to run all Linux software naively in Windows with great speed you can see why they would look at doing that when some 40% of their Azure instances are being spun up without Windows. Developers is a distraction here. They are trying to entice Linux users to boot Windows instances on their cloud service.
You're right, it isn't Linux. It's the Windows Subsystem for Linux. I don't understand what people find so hard to understand about the name. It runs in Windows, it's a subsystem for software that traditionally runs on the Linux kernel.
Linux is not a second-class citizen that needs to ride on the back of Microsoft Windows.
It doesn't. Linux isn't running anywhere. Windows Subsystem for Linux is all about not running Linux AT ALL, but giving Windows users access to Linux userland apps.
It's insulting that Microsoft claims that enterprises are asking for this.
Then you should blame the enterprises for your insult. The same enterprises who spin up 40% of Azure instances not because they give a shit about Linux, but rather to access software that only runs on Linux.
Any enterprise that uses Linux know, Linux stands on its own.
Of course it does, but for what reason? Very few enterprises use Linux because Linux. They use Linux because Apache or some other killer application. Enterprises grit their teeth at running things like IIS but often do so anyway because Windows has no alternative in many parts of the enterprise sector. WSL is specifically targeting these groups. Pretending like they don't exist is just sheer stupidity.
Any Linux distro that partners this way tarnishes the years of development effort of thousands of developers
Any distro that makes themselves more accessible tarnishes themselves? In the eyes of who? You and Richard Stallman? Guess what, most people don't give a shit.
The only dumb thing is misusing the word trust to be all encompassing. There are many things I trust about Microsoft, such as their inability to create a lightweight useful server product. I trust that all their software will have some way of trying to ex-filtrate data.
I also trust that their history can't be used to predict their future given that their history was based on leadership by a malevolent and technically quite brilliant and strategic mind with impeccable attention to detail, whereas their future is to be run by a lobotomized MBA who can't even turn one of the largest purchases in the mobile phone world into a usable product.
In summary, MS are too stupid to be genuinely evil.
Why are things not supplied with a hypervisor and then people just choose what they want on first boot, even choosing "all" if they want both OS.
Depends on your use case. There are plenty of places where the hypervisor is the default state. 2 of the machines in my house do just that. My desktop? Well one of the reasons people run Windows is to run certain applications which also have very real performance constraints (i.e. games). Good luck with your hypervisor there.
Fortunately we're not running Linux on Windows. What we're running is Linux based applications on Windows, and given the great speeds WSL provides along with not needing to fire up an entire virtual machine to get the job done this sure as hell is a heck of a lot less stupid than having to manage 2 OSes on one machine.
As for why people use Windows at all, If you don't know it already it's only because you don't want to accept it. This has been discussed to death.
Other than not having to recompile and relink binaries with cygwin, or Ming, how is this very different?
You say "other than not having to recompile binaries" as if this is a small thing. It is a very big difference and fundamentally being able to emulate the Linux Kernel ABI to natively run entire linux distributions within windows makes comparing cygwin to WSL similar to comparing Docker to VMWare.
They are emulating a completely different layer and as such providing a completely different level of compatibility and usability. Cygwin is great for running some scripts and some basic small binaries, but it's quite painful to do anything more than that.
Actually you're missing the point of Open source. By-n-large most large players don't give a shit about open source when they chose Linux or such toolkits for their enterprise solutions. Altruism doesn't fit in anywhere in the procurement strategy.
I mean, when/. first started, it was all "embrace, extend, extinguish" with MS using a Borg Gates avatar.
When/. first started MS was run by a smart CEO with an incredibly strategic way of thinking slowly working its way to an incredible monopoly. The MS of today can't even convince people to get a free upgrade of an existing MS product, or extract anything of value from a $7.6bn acquisition of a large mobile phone company.
I have high trust that MS's current leadership is too incompetent to execute an embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. Not only that but in order to so you need to come from a position of a monopoly and they sure as hell aren't in that position in that space right now.
Then running it in WSL you really don't get to experience all its real advantages.
You don't need *all* the advantages. You just need some of them. MS's biggest problem is that most of the web is run on Linux, that is Linux servers and services. The underlying OS is not the reason for it. This extends to their own Azure platform where Linux is a popular choice.
The point here is not to run Linux. The point is to run the things that Linux offers under Windows, scripts, applications, etc. That way they can start pushing their own Azure customers to run Windows server instead. Likewise developers who are working on Linux can do so from within Windows i.e > Visual Studio.
Yes, because weapons have always been known to fall into the wrong hands and that goes double for those based on exploits. Security by obscurity and all that.
Then we both minded our business until a couple hours later I receive a notification on my phone from the Vodafone main app advertising Zonga.
What's more likely, that your phone is always listening and waiting for the opportunity to sell every conversation you have to someone else, or that an Vodafone knew you just started using Tidal and simply wanted to advertise it's own competing service?
This is most likely a case of classic false attribution.
I talked with a friend about kitchen knives and later that day I saw ads for kitchen knives on Facebook. He jumped to the same conclusion.... except that I'd been on websites such as Knivesandtools for the past week, typing kitchen knives into Google and in general using service where I 100% knew I was already being tracked.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole thing does make me nauseous though.
Yes the ability for an OS to run some basic software from other OSes better than cygwin is a major drama. *roll eyes*
You're falling into the same trap everyone else is. What has been delivered is far from feature complete and the first time you execute bash.exe you get a warning that the software is in beta.
The embrace stage is a loooooong way from being over.
Not expecting to use the GUI or having to deal with a large set of drivers what real advantage is there to use Ubentu vs Debian or Redhat vs Suse...
The difference every distro offers: The package management philosophy and their own home baked management apps (the most obvious of which being the package manager itself).
You have no way of knowing that.
Their offensive weapons they developed are being used not only against their own people with great success but against their own government.
I have heard of having your head in the sand, but to come up with that statement I think you mistook sand for concrete and then let it set.
Not if Facebook wants to do business in that country.
That depends. This was a request to attend. It has no legal weight. There's no reason for a foreign CEO to attend either. The UK has very little political capital around the world right now. Let's see how embargoing a foreign company because their CEO didn't want to come in for a non-legally binding chat goes shall we?
I didn't say they were stupid. I said they were "too stupid" to be evil. They are mutually exclusive on account of the adverb I used before stupid.
It's not. Linux isn't running at all. It's about running GNU/Windows.
It would best for Linux to be our core, and make Windows an optional subsystem of a LInux host.
You should tell Code-weavers to get working on it. Me, I'm personally happy having the option rather being told what is "best".
Embrace. You can't extend what isn't embraced. WSL usage is basically non existent.
It's not Linux at all. You do realise that right?
Not even the slightest bit of Linux code is being run. That's entirely the point of a Windows Subsystem for Linux.
It is however still perfectly real GNU program regardless of which kernel it runs on.
I can't comment on the network development side, but ....
It seems really slow. Maybe it's just my imagination, but sometimes I'd do something as simple as an 'ls' and patiently wait.
WSL has bench marked in a variety of use cases (including disk IO) with very similar results to Docker and VMWare. It's certainly not native performance, but it isn't that far from it. ls is instant on my machine, so maybe something went wrong in your install.
There was no GUI support out of the box. I had to setup Xming on the windows side. Again, not super complicated, but it seems like little thought was put into it.
Plenty of thought has been put into it. The big problem here is users expecting software that specifically flashes up as being experimental when you first install it to be feature complete. If you look at what is being added in terms of support with each windows version then you'll see WSL is still under active development. It already has some use cases, why should those people have to wait because it's not ready for all use cases?
Maybe it will get better, but it seems like it's trying to solve a problem most people don't have.
You're firing up a full VM to get access to a few basic tools? Yeah we can bury a screw into wood using a hammer too, but really a small screwdriver will do. Users not having an express problem isn't exactly a reason not to develop something with the goal of offering improvements.
That said the problem isn't just users, it's Microsoft itself. With their goal to be able to run all Linux software naively in Windows with great speed you can see why they would look at doing that when some 40% of their Azure instances are being spun up without Windows. Developers is a distraction here. They are trying to entice Linux users to boot Windows instances on their cloud service.
You're right, it isn't Linux. It's the Windows Subsystem for Linux. I don't understand what people find so hard to understand about the name. It runs in Windows, it's a subsystem for software that traditionally runs on the Linux kernel.
Wow. Where to start.
Linux is not a second-class citizen that needs to ride on the back of Microsoft Windows.
It doesn't. Linux isn't running anywhere. Windows Subsystem for Linux is all about not running Linux AT ALL, but giving Windows users access to Linux userland apps.
It's insulting that Microsoft claims that enterprises are asking for this.
Then you should blame the enterprises for your insult. The same enterprises who spin up 40% of Azure instances not because they give a shit about Linux, but rather to access software that only runs on Linux.
Any enterprise that uses Linux know, Linux stands on its own.
Of course it does, but for what reason? Very few enterprises use Linux because Linux. They use Linux because Apache or some other killer application. Enterprises grit their teeth at running things like IIS but often do so anyway because Windows has no alternative in many parts of the enterprise sector. WSL is specifically targeting these groups. Pretending like they don't exist is just sheer stupidity.
Any Linux distro that partners this way tarnishes the years of development effort of thousands of developers
Any distro that makes themselves more accessible tarnishes themselves? In the eyes of who? You and Richard Stallman? Guess what, most people don't give a shit.
So the question came from you not knowing basic security?
If you have a 17" CAD laptop I guarantee a surface pro would fit in it and you wouldn't notice any difference in size of weight
I travel every day all the time with 2 laptops. It's far easier and lighter than just one laptop from a few years back. Harden up.
The only dumb thing is misusing the word trust to be all encompassing. There are many things I trust about Microsoft, such as their inability to create a lightweight useful server product. I trust that all their software will have some way of trying to ex-filtrate data.
I also trust that their history can't be used to predict their future given that their history was based on leadership by a malevolent and technically quite brilliant and strategic mind with impeccable attention to detail, whereas their future is to be run by a lobotomized MBA who can't even turn one of the largest purchases in the mobile phone world into a usable product.
In summary, MS are too stupid to be genuinely evil.
Why are things not supplied with a hypervisor and then people just choose what they want on first boot, even choosing "all" if they want both OS.
Depends on your use case. There are plenty of places where the hypervisor is the default state. 2 of the machines in my house do just that. My desktop? Well one of the reasons people run Windows is to run certain applications which also have very real performance constraints (i.e. games). Good luck with your hypervisor there.
Linux on windows = stupid.
Fortunately we're not running Linux on Windows. What we're running is Linux based applications on Windows, and given the great speeds WSL provides along with not needing to fire up an entire virtual machine to get the job done this sure as hell is a heck of a lot less stupid than having to manage 2 OSes on one machine.
As for why people use Windows at all, If you don't know it already it's only because you don't want to accept it. This has been discussed to death.
Other than not having to recompile and relink binaries with cygwin, or Ming, how is this very different?
You say "other than not having to recompile binaries" as if this is a small thing. It is a very big difference and fundamentally being able to emulate the Linux Kernel ABI to natively run entire linux distributions within windows makes comparing cygwin to WSL similar to comparing Docker to VMWare.
They are emulating a completely different layer and as such providing a completely different level of compatibility and usability. Cygwin is great for running some scripts and some basic small binaries, but it's quite painful to do anything more than that.
Open source wasnt developed
Actually you're missing the point of Open source. By-n-large most large players don't give a shit about open source when they chose Linux or such toolkits for their enterprise solutions. Altruism doesn't fit in anywhere in the procurement strategy.
I mean, when /. first started, it was all "embrace, extend, extinguish" with MS using a Borg Gates avatar.
When /. first started MS was run by a smart CEO with an incredibly strategic way of thinking slowly working its way to an incredible monopoly. The MS of today can't even convince people to get a free upgrade of an existing MS product, or extract anything of value from a $7.6bn acquisition of a large mobile phone company.
I have high trust that MS's current leadership is too incompetent to execute an embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. Not only that but in order to so you need to come from a position of a monopoly and they sure as hell aren't in that position in that space right now.
Then running it in WSL you really don't get to experience all its real advantages.
You don't need *all* the advantages. You just need some of them. MS's biggest problem is that most of the web is run on Linux, that is Linux servers and services. The underlying OS is not the reason for it. This extends to their own Azure platform where Linux is a popular choice.
The point here is not to run Linux. The point is to run the things that Linux offers under Windows, scripts, applications, etc. That way they can start pushing their own Azure customers to run Windows server instead. Likewise developers who are working on Linux can do so from within Windows i.e > Visual Studio.
Nothing fair or unfair about it. The NSA had a remit to protect the nation, and they've failed at it spectacularly.
Yes, because weapons have always been known to fall into the wrong hands and that goes double for those based on exploits. Security by obscurity and all that.
Then we both minded our business until a couple hours later I receive a notification on my phone from the Vodafone main app advertising Zonga.
What's more likely, that your phone is always listening and waiting for the opportunity to sell every conversation you have to someone else, or that an Vodafone knew you just started using Tidal and simply wanted to advertise it's own competing service?
This is most likely a case of classic false attribution.
I talked with a friend about kitchen knives and later that day I saw ads for kitchen knives on Facebook. He jumped to the same conclusion .... except that I'd been on websites such as Knivesandtools for the past week, typing kitchen knives into Google and in general using service where I 100% knew I was already being tracked.