Ubuntu 16.04 Available in Latest Insider Update To Windows 10 (omgubuntu.co.uk) 127
The latest Windows 10 Insider preview -- build 14936 -- features Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. When a user enables the 'Bash on Ubuntu on Windows' feature for the first time, OMGUbuntu reports, Windows 10 now installs an Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus) image instead of Ubuntu 14.04 (Trusty Tahr). From the report: The updated version of Ubuntu in the WSL only affects new instances, i.e., those created by running lxrun.exe /install or on the very first run of the bash.exe setup. It is possible to upgrade WSL instances from Ubuntu 14.04 to Ubuntu 16.04 manually by running the do-release-upgrade command. Other changes in the WSL in Build 14936 include support for chroot system call, epoll support for /dev/null and the ability for bash -c to redirect to a file.
And now, (Score:2)
Yikes (Score:1)
Nope. (Score:1)
Don't want.
Re: (Score:3)
You get the idea. I run OS X^H^H^HmacOS as my main operating system and use the shell frequently. I used Red Hat as my desk top in the late 90s and early 2000s. I like the idea that my knowledge and familiarity is portable across all the environments I may come across.
Re: (Score:3)
I also use Git for storing documents. If ransomware comes a-knocking and trashes my files, a reinstall, reload of apps, and a git clone gets all my data back. Having a native command line for that, as well as for using a deduplicating backup program like borg backup, attic, or others, is quite nice to have.
Re: (Score:1)
I also use Git for storing documents.
And yet git is poor for binaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Git doesn't treat binaries any different from text. In fact, in an uncompressed repo, both are stored entirely as a whole - unlike RCS/CVS/SVN, each version is not stored as a diff of another version (either store the latest and maintain diffs of previous versions, or store the initial and maintain diffs going forward. The data model of Git stores everything as-is.
Later versions of git stored the repository as a giant tarball
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Because I want to use grep. Because I want to run scripts and write them in Bash. Because I like the find command. Because... You get the idea. I run OS X^H^H^HmacOS as my main operating system and use the shell frequently. I used Red Hat as my desk top in the late 90s and early 2000s. I like the idea that my knowledge and familiarity is portable across all the environments I may come across.
Most of those individual commands have been available in Windoze for a long time. Try installing UnxUtils or GnuWin32 to get grep and other *Nix commands in Windows.
Re:why just why (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not cygwin-like. Cygwin tries to translate Unix calls to Windows calls, and provides a DLL to link your source code against. WSL actually provides an ELF loader and handles Linux system calls; it runs Linux programs the way a Linux kernel would, albeit the kernel is more of an academic project written from scratch (e.g. FreeBSD or Minix implementing Linux-compatible system calls so as to straight run a Linux userland).
WSL is excellent for those of us in an actual Windows enterprise environment doing Linux system development or administration. It gives a real Unix-like environment with real tools, rather than Cygwin. In general, it's kind of clunky and unpolished; but it's better than Cygwin.
I'd like to see Microsoft release a Winbind-type service that connects (via TCP) to localhost and mediates between the Winbind socket and the local authentication daemon. Otherwise you have to join your computer *and* the Bash shell on your computer to the domain. Would also like to see them implement Docker under WSL tbh.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me you would just be better off running Linux in a virtual machine. I've tried this Linux on Windows stuff, and there was quite a bit of basic stuff that didn't work. It's definitely not production ready yet. Even if it was production ready, what would this provide that running a virtual machine would not provide?
Re: (Score:3)
Better performance, lower overheads, better integration between Windows and Ubuntu etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds weird - a crash shouldn't do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My belief is that the 99% use case of this is for running docker images.
Before this you could run docker on windows, but you had to create a "bizarre" tiny linux distro VM (100mb or so storage), and the docker on windows launcher would leverage that to provision and run the docker images. You had to dedicate ram to that VM to run your docker pool.
With this you can run docker images "natively", without a separate VM memory space, and due to the elf loader support they actually are running on windows itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why just why (Score:5, Informative)
"...WSL actually provides an ELF loader and handles Linux system calls; it runs Linux programs the way a Linux kernel would..."
Lots of people seem to miss this point. And a huge benefit of this is that performance is excellent. Running my ffmpeg bash scripts for x264 encoding/conversion I get identical speed in Ubuntu on Windows as I get on Debian Stretch on the same hardware. And it's great to be able to run screen or tmux locally, not just on a remote machine I ssh'd into. This is much better than using putty or running a VM.
I boot Windows 10 most days because my Steam games mostly don't run on Steam for Linux and gaming under Wine is just too unreliable in many cases. If I don't have to reboot to accomplish some regular tasks than that's a bonus for me.
Re: (Score:1)
Running my ffmpeg bash scripts for x264 encoding/conversion I get identical speed in Ubuntu on Windows as I get on Debian Stretch on the same hardware.
Duh. Running a task that only uses CPU gets the same speed. Frankly, if you don't get the same speed from a VM your VM software is broken. Only I/O bound tasks should show any reduction in speed from running in a VM.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. IO-bound tasks are slow in VM because IO requires a kernel call. So does task switching, memory mapping (mmap(), brk()), getting the time, getting process information, changing memory protections, advising on memory use (madvise()), sleeping, interprocess communication (pipes), creating shared memory, and several other things. Modern VMs are faster because they eliminate the large amount of work required to make a kernel call.
CPU-bound tasks can lose clock cycles to task switching and context s
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. IO-bound tasks are slow in VM because IO requires a kernel call. So does task switching, memory mapping (mmap(), brk()), getting the time, getting process information, changing memory protections, advising on memory use (madvise()), sleeping, interprocess communication (pipes), creating shared memory, and several other things.
So, like I said, a mostly cpu bound task like ffmpeg isn't going to see much difference.
Re: (Score:2)
CPU-bound tasks can lose clock cycles to task switching and context switches. Task switching destroys CPU cache, causing major performance hits on certain types of applications, notably media-encoding applications; additional task switching by the host OS exacerbates this.
So a CPU-bound task like ffmpeg--that's going through a large span of memory and thus is sensitive to excessive cache flushes--is going to see a huge difference, depending on how much the hypervisor cooperates with the guest OS for task
Re: (Score:2)
"And that's whose fault again?"
It's the fault of condescending pricks. Like you for instance.
ttfn.
You know the rest... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is the "embrace" stage...
Re: (Score:1)
You never seem to have left the "worthless shitbag" stage that seems against any sort of progress in Windows. You bitch and whine because it doesn't have the tools you want, and then you bitch and whine when they try to add them.
You never seem to have left the "Microsoft Justice Warrior" stage that seems against any sort of criticism based on previous experiences with Microsoft. The day when instead of Ubuntu you get Microsoft Windows will be the "extend" phase.
Re: (Score:1)
The day when instead of Ubuntu you get Microsoft Windows will be the "extend" phase.
Um, I meant Microsoft Linux, Feel free to disregard my mistake and continue suffering my caustic cynicism.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean Xenix?
It's been forever since I loaded that...
Re: (Score:2)
you mean Xenix?
Man, I loved that TV show. I had the hots for Xenix's little brunette friend.
Why? (Score:3)
So, what scenario would fit best to use Linux on Windows instead of Windows on Linux for the professional? (I myself use Proxmox as a desktop with severeal machines for testing on it)
Re: (Score:1)
Plenty of corporate Windows-only shops that this at least gives another option to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using bash shell and GNU for tools/scripts/etc is nice. Frankly, if you think Ubuntu on Windows is "running Linux" I don't think you quite get what it is at all.
Re: (Score:3)
There are any number of Unix/Linux applications that have never been ported to Windows by their developers and have no direct equivalent in the MS world. If most of your work is in Windows, it makes obvious sense to run that as your main OS, but having the ability to use additional Unix/Linux packages fills a real need. I've been doing this by varous means since the 90s, using Cygwin, VMs, and now this thing. It may possible to (e.g.) use Windows-native GNU tools (MinGW, etc.) to build the software you need
Re: (Score:2)
After Windows anal probe 10, M$ has the whole marketing stank thing going, it can't sell anything any more. Hence weird moves like this that serve no real purpose except marketing. So trying to associate with Ubuntu to recover some cool and loose a little bit of that stink. I don't think anyone is buying it though but they will still try. Expect of series of other similar PR=B$ stunts to try to improve their disgusting perve image, at least more government are starting to act against M$ and criminal prying
Re: (Score:2)
I could see testing PHP, Perl, or Python scripts in such an environment. Think web development and things like that. There are probably a lot of use cases like that.
Typo, darn (Score:2)
Proofread too quick. Need edit option.
Re: (Score:2)
Development? Specialised hardware to operate machinery?
Then it doesn't seem to me that there's a reason to run a Linux virtual macine on that. Might even be more prone to breaking things.
Out-of-Touch IT (Score:3, Insightful)
As an engineer, many places I have worked have IT departments which are run for the benefit of non-techies and completely out-of-touch with engineering. These companies simply do not understand the engineers' desires whatsoever. Windows is forced upon the engineers (80% of the white collar workforce) because it's simpler to maintain a single OS, and the remaining 20% wants windows. I am not saying that every engineer agrees with me. However, only one side of the debate is heard at most companies: those who
Re:Out-of-Touch IT (Score:4, Interesting)
Although to be honest the cross platform stuff worked best when I had a Mac around and could also target a completely different architecture, 68K or PPC CPUs back in the day. Admittedly it was easier to get an extra hard drive for Linux than a Mac. Fortunately at some of these jobs we also had Mac products.
Re: (Score:2)
Because this isn't an emulation layer - just a different kernel. It's native binaries and no virtualization. You just can't do the reverse on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows doesn't have stable "real" syscalls -- you're supposed to use a shared lib interface that is rock stable (ABI-compatible down to 3.11+win32s, mostly API-compatible all the way back to Windows 1). The real syscalls are undocumented and change in incompatible ways even between minor updates of the OS.
Thus, win32/win64 on NT is no more or less "native" than Wine.
On the other hand, WSL implements compatibility at syscall [github.com] level.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, win32/win64 on NT is no more or less "native" than Wine.
That would be an important point if everything actually ran on WINE. There are a LOT of useful Linux utilities than run just fine from a CLI, but very few for Windows. GUI incompatibility is the big one for WINE, and there are plenty of stable X servers available for Windows and a well-documented protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Wine vs NT is same as Win98 vs NT -- all three are implementations of the win32 API, with different subtle incompatibilities. Do you remember the trouble when moving from 98 to XP? Wine is about on par with that. The 98->XP transition was done mostly by efforts of application programmers, trying to achieve full bug-to-bug compatibility in the implementation itself is a titanic work.
Re: (Score:2)
That's beside the point of my argument. Linux on Windows is more stable than Windows on Linux, because there's no GUI component involved in the translation layer.
Re: (Score:3)
For that reason I always wanted that the win32/win64 API will be a international standard managed by an official organization like ISO. That way Microsoft will lost evil control of an API that is actually a very effective tool to kick off any concurrent. This will allow Wine to implement a good implementation based on detailed documentation.
This is curious that no government on the planet require that win32/win64 are international standard, while there usually require standard certification on a tone of les
Re: (Score:2)
What about porting ReactOS to a linux kernel in userland? There is some success there in that platform and be a better solution than wine
Re: (Score:2)
It's doable, the Wine project prove that point. It's just way more complicated...
In addition to what "KiloByte" have said, Microsoft have the Linux source code as implementation reference to look at, while the Wine project didn't have a chance to look at the Microsoft kernel and libraries.
Re: (Score:2)
ReactOS seems a btter implementation but is immature kernel wise.
Perhaps using reactOS on a linux kernel in userland an idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that just be WINE [wikipedia.org]?
The main difference between the two is the attempt at a kernel that mimics Windows' kernel more directly. Otherwise, they share quite a bit of code.
Re: (Score:2)
This now makes me wonder what reason there could be to run Ubuntu on Windows instead of Windows on Linux.
How about because Ubuntu on Window works, while "Windows" (which isn't really Windows) on Linux can be kind of a crap-shoot. A very crappy crap shoot.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Why linux on Windows? ...
You want to develop on Visual Studio because it's an awesome dev environment, but bash is a much better solution for build/config scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't Linux and it isn't a virtual machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Uninstallable since 14915 (Score:2)
Don't worry, that build is not available anyway. Since 14915, all Windows 10 Insider Preview does is downloading updates over and over, rebooting for several hours long installation that requires you to log in in the middle then rolls back the update for another several hours. Judging by the Feedback Hub, same happens to many or possibly most people on insider builds. And working versions are expired since Oct 1st.
I for one don't let Windows anywhere outside a VM but those who made the mistake of using W
Where is Microsoft's source repository? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even if they were distributing GPL software would they need to do that (they would need to provide some kind of access to sources though) however they don't so...
They can refer you to Ubuntu's repositories (Score:2)
Where is Microsoft's source repository? They're making all of this GPL code available on a commercial basis. I believe that this makes them responsible for making a source repository available. (been a while since I (re) read the pertinent sections of the GPL.
They don't need one. They are not modifying these tools so you can go to Ubuntu's repository. If you asked MS for the source they could fulfill their GPL obligation by referring you to Ubuntu's.
Note that they do not use the Linux kernel. They have alternative code for providing the necessary Linux APIs for the tools.
The cart before the horse? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even easy to audit network activity on Linux once you get stuff like TCP offload engines involved. You pretty much need to use instrumented switches if you want to be sure of everything going in or out of your NICs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but then MS does not get to snoop on you while you do Linux stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Why Microsoft do this ? (Score:2)
The question is especially interesting in the long term.
Will this be just a limited trick to please the developers that like usual console tools on Ubuntu. ?
Or will this be someday included by default on Windows with enough support to allow to run Linux applications ?
Docker (Score:4, Interesting)
A re-paste of a comment I posted as a reply:
My belief is that the 99% use case of this is for running docker images.
Before this you could run docker on windows, but you had to create a "bizarre" tiny linux distro VM (100mb or so storage), and the docker on windows launcher would leverage that to provision and run the docker images. You had to dedicate ram to that VM to run your docker pool.
With this you can run docker images "natively", without a separate VM memory space, and due to the elf loader support they actually are running on windows itself.
I do not see this as a good alternative to traditional VMs.
Re: (Score:2)
windows server 2016 comes with container support built in, and guess what cloud platform it uses? Docker.
Microsoft Windows ... (Score:2)
... Systemd Edition?
Samba (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, this won't work.
cat /proc/filesystems
nodev sysfs
nodev rootfs
nodev bdev
nodev proc
nodev tmpfs
nodev binfmt_misc
nodev debugfs
nodev sockfs
nodev usbfs
nodev pipefs
nodev anon_inodefs
nodev devpts
ext3
ext2
ext4
nodev ramfs
nodev hugetlbfs
vfat
msdos
iso9660
fuseblk
nodev fuse
nodev fusectl
yaffs
yaffs2
nodev mqueue
No systemd (Score:4, Funny)
I'd figure everyone would be jumping for joy because there's no systemd in this.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, all seven of the systemd obsessives may be excited -- but not really, because without systemd they have nothing to whine about. I mean, look at the windswept empty desert that is Devuan -- if people actually wanted a system without systemd they'd all be telling us about the exciting new developments in Devuan, rather than banging on about systemd in every thread that slightly touches on RedHat, Debian or Ubuntu.
How about Windows on Linux? (Score:2)
Could something like ReactOS be ported on a Linux kernel in userland to run win32 software?
Decent console environment for cheap win laptops. (Score:1)
On a 2GB RAM / 32 GB storage cheap Windows laptop, I have found that Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) works fine and I would prefer it to full emulation given the limited amount of RAM available. For 150GBP, I have got a 1kg "disposable" notebook with a small form factor, decent keyboard and 10hrs battery life. I used to have a chromebook for that purpose, but I had to flash its firmware and hardware support wasn't perfect.
As a C++ development environment, you get the usual console tools (vim, git, cmake
Ping? (Score:2)
So does ping even work now? This is why I went back to Windows 7 after a drive failure.
Re:I want Mint without systemd (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else in this position? What are you trying?
I'm running Ubuntu under Windows 10, using the 'Bash on Ubuntu on Windows' feature. That way I can have Windows monitor the Linux environment and intervene in case of problems. It gives me the best of both worlds, Windows robustness and stability and access to the myriad of applications that are only available for Linux.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's cool, I'm glad it works for you. I don't have a Windows license or use any Windows specific apps, but I'm not even sure if some of the apps I use are available in that environment, such as Rosegarden.
Also I'm not too familiar with Windows past 2000, I probably wouldn't know where to begin on what to enable/disable to have a usable desktop without nags, and I'm not a fan of updating each driver/app separately (or even installing drivers, which I don't have to do in Linux). I mentioned that I love apt
Re: (Score:1)
Windows robustness and stability
Fuck me, you ARE new here.
Re: I want Mint without systemd (Score:2)
It gives me the best of both worlds, Windows robustness and stability and access to the myriad of applications that are only available for Linux.
Whoosh?
Re: (Score:2)
It gives me the best of both worlds, Windows robustness and stability and access to the myriad of applications that are only available for Linux.
Whoosh?
Actually a double Whoosh. One statement poking fun at Windows and another statement poking fun at Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought since Debian included systemd, so would LMDE? Thanks for the ideas, will definitely check it out!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. LMDE is not frequently updated, and as it is based on Debian and not Devuan would probably eventually migrate to systemd automatically by default, I'd probably be better sticking with Mint 17.3 LTS until 2019...
Re: (Score:1)
Debian includes systemd if you want it to. If you don't want to use systemd install some other init system.
Strangely, Devuan, that was supposed to give people "init freedom" doesn't support systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that's very informative... Makes me wonder why all the hubris over forking Debian then if you can just install some other init... I guess because some packages are starting to depend on it? Anyway, I'll try this, thanks for the idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Makes me wonder why all the hubris over forking Debian then if you can just install some other init... I guess because some packages are starting to depend on it?
As far as I know no packages in Debian that are not part of systemd depend on systemd being the init system. Some packages do depend on systemd being installed for various complicated reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Me? No, I focus on what I'm doing, not what others are trying to do, unless they specifically ask for my help/input
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: systemd? (Score:2)
And Bill Gates?
Re: (Score:1)
"Whatever floats your boat"?
Why would you expect them to have an "official position". It's free software. Use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Curious about one thing - what is rms and FSF's official position on systemd?
It's free software, it meets their definition and offers users what they define as the essential freedoms so they're just fine with it. Is there something about systemd that would make you think they would have a different position?