Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 30, 2016 23:08 UTC (Wed) by dowdle (subscriber, #659)
Parent article: Ubuntu on Windows

Microsoft says this is really just for developers... and not really end users (not even sure if graphical stuff works or not)... nor is it for running Linux server applications.

So, I don't think this is really much more than an novelty especially when compared to Cygwin or MobaXterm.

If you think Microsoft is going to spend a lot of time making it perform well for the Linux desktop and server applications, I'm pretty skeptical.

So, it is going to be released as an App in the Microsoft Store. Hopefully they'll charge money for it and Canonical can *FINALLY* have a profitable revenue stream. :) Of course, Microsoft would get a 30% cut. Maybe Microsoft can sue themselves for enabling Linux (which they claim violates Microsoft's patents) to run on Windows. :)

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 30, 2016 23:27 UTC (Wed) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link] (1 responses)

cygwin requires you to recompile apps. this does not. that's a huge advantage. If I guess correctly, it's also implemented in kernel, so there's no performance overhead compared to native applications - cygwin on the other hand is hilariously slow.

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 31, 2016 0:14 UTC (Thu) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]

If I use Cygwin's package manager, I don't compile anything. It seems to have a fairly reasonable set of packages... at least for my limited tastes. I realize everything has been recompiled, but so what? So far as performance goes, I haven't really noticed a significant degradation... but then again, I haven't done much other than run some simple tools. Supposedly I/O is a lot slower... but then again, how is Ubuntu's userspace installed for Windows 10? In a directory tree on the host's filesystem? How many issues will that cause? Or are they using a disk image with native ext4 or something?

Again, Microsoft says it is for developers... and not really for users nor running server applications... and in that use case, they are probably similar. Except at this time, Cygwin's terminal emulation might be a tad better.

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 31, 2016 3:22 UTC (Thu) by jdub (guest, #27) [Link] (3 responses)

This is absolutely 1000% better than Cygwin or MobaXterm. It's an NT subsystem that implements the Linux ABI. It's the Right Way to do it… and we had to wait for Microsoft, because only they can do it this way. (Only one other company has ever built an NT subsystem, and that was because Microsoft goofed up. They didn't mean for it to be doable by anyone else.)

The NT subsystem itself won't be released on the Windows Store. It will ship as a Windows "Feature", which (at least so far) you'll only be able to turn on in Developer Mode.

It's the Ubuntu root filesystem that will be distributed on the Windows Store, and the way all of this is built means other distros ought to be able to release their own flavours. Technically. Whether Microsoft has an exclusive agreement with Canonical is currently unknown.

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 31, 2016 10:30 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

Any limitations with that store on content under some specific licenses?

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 31, 2016 15:02 UTC (Thu) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link] (1 responses)

Why is it 1000% better? I think you greatly discount all of the work the Cygwin folks have put into not only porting software but in building packages and maintaining them. I also have to wonder just how much porting effort is/was required. I would imagine that Cygwin provides its own compatibility layer and to assume it is terrible and the new thing is so much superior... is a big assumption. Time will tell.

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 31, 2016 23:04 UTC (Thu) by jdub (guest, #27) [Link]

I'm not discounting the work of the Cygwin folks when I say that building a Linux ABI compatible NT subsystem (which only Microsoft could do) is a better way to run Linux software on Windows than creating a Win32-based POSIX/GNU compatible build target.

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 31, 2016 10:02 UTC (Thu) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link] (1 responses)

Or it may, as a finally efficient Cygwin-lookalike working with standard distributions, end up with Canonical loosing most Ubuntu installations on desktops and laptops as soon as distributions finely tuned to it come out. Could be marketed as "Linux" without the burden of the missing hardware drivers and the buggy desktop environments. For some reasons, it looks to me as a much more credible approach to get a distro for being productive on a tablet or a convertible laptop than the Ubuntu tablet or the various DEs tablet efforts, which in many senses is not good news. For sure, it has already put all my interest for the Ubuntu tablet on hold.

Ubuntu on Windows

Posted Mar 31, 2016 21:28 UTC (Thu) by kmccarty (subscriber, #12085) [Link]

Surely marketing it as being "Linux" would be a trademark infringement? Because the one thing that is actually *missing* from the Ubuntu user-land to be distributed within Windows is the Linux kernel itself!