Microsoft and Canonical partner to bring Ubuntu to Windows 10 | ZDNet
Lessee now... If I run Windows in a virtual machine, as I do now, then I'd have Linux running on Windows running on Linux. I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad! :-) http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61
On 16-03-30 01:23 PM, James Knott wrote:
Does this mean Ubuntu under Windows will be subject to a lot of the viruses, spyware, and other security issues of the Windows operating system? -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're | powerful!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | --Chris Hardwick
| From: James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> | Lessee now... If I run Windows in a virtual machine, as I do now, then | I'd have Linux running on Windows running on Linux. I guess 2 out of 3 | ain't bad! :-) | | http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61 A slightly more informative article from the same source: <http://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-not-linux-on-windows-how-it-works/> Interesting. I don't think that an X application will run. No Linux desktop. Even programs like screen don't work, but that may be easy to fix. It isn't clear how useful this can be. If you really want linux on Windows, I would guess virtualbox or the like would do a better job. If you want command-line tools to muck within the Windows environment, cygwin probably does the job as well. Both would have a translation layer, at least for pathnames. And PowerShell ought to be a better choice. It won't have an impedance mismatch with Windows. The design of PowerShell (Monad) looked good to me when it came out (but I have never tried it).
On 31 March 2016 at 21:39, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@mimosa.com> wrote:
| From: James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com>
| Lessee now... If I run Windows in a virtual machine, as I do now, then | I'd have Linux running on Windows running on Linux. I guess 2 out of 3 | ain't bad! :-) | | http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61
A slightly more informative article from the same source: <http://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-not-linux-on-windows-how-it-works/>
Interesting. I don't think that an X application will run. No Linux desktop. Even programs like screen don't work, but that may be easy to fix.
It isn't clear how useful this can be.
If you really want linux on Windows, I would guess virtualbox or the like would do a better job.
If you want command-line tools to muck within the Windows environment, cygwin probably does the job as well. Both would have a translation layer, at least for pathnames. And PowerShell ought to be a better choice. It won't have an impedance mismatch with Windows. The design of PowerShell (Monad) looked good to me when it came out (but I have never tried it).
Here's the logic as it seems to me. At work, we use mostly Macs because it's easier to deal with our mostly Linux-based servers - Mac supports almost all the same command line utilities, and most people (read "most people not on this list") sadly prefer Macs to Linux. Some offices use Linux to deal with their remote servers. Most people try to avoid Windows because of, as you put it, an "impedance mismatch." So - if this Ubuntu-on-Windows is as transparent as the puff pieces we've seen so far suggest, you can now use Linux utilities on Windows - you can bundle your gems, you can lint your Javascript, you can do a lot more server-side stuff locally. More easily (although it sounds like some path translation will still be necessary). So corporate IT departments get more of what they want (a Windows monoculture), and Microsoft brings some of the Apple and Linux faithful back into the fold because it's "good enough." And then, because you're already running your dev environment on Windows with the Linux tools you love, some people think "hey, wouldn't it be great if we had exactly the same environment in the server room?" Or, as a friend of mine put it, 'the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" hasn't been lost.' -- Giles http://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com
On 2016-03-31 09:53 PM, Giles Orr wrote:
Or, as a friend of mine put it, 'the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" hasn't been lost.'
I don't think the target of MS's extinguishment is us. It's very hard to compete with the nebulous world of Linux. You can't create a business plan to attack something that has so many facets. MS can, however, attack Apple. Apple destroys Microsoft on the desktop. I'm not talking about the business desktop, where Windows is still solid, but in the notebooks you see people using on the road, in coffee shops, in colleges, and so on. Microsoft wants a piece of that “Creative Class”† action, and the more of it they can funnel onto Office 365 and Azure subscriptions, the better. The move to a no-charge Windows licence is like Gillette handing out free razors. Apple and Microsoft can make far more money on services than they ever could hawking hardware and software. cheers, Stewart †: a dreadful term, I know, but it's a convenient shorthand.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scruss@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2016-03-31 09:53 PM, Giles Orr wrote:
Or, as a friend of mine put it, 'the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" hasn't been lost.'
I don't think the target of MS's extinguishment is us. It's very hard to compete with the nebulous world of Linux. You can't create a business plan to attack something that has so many facets.
MS can, however, attack Apple. Apple destroys Microsoft on the desktop. I'm not talking about the business desktop, where Windows is still solid, but in the notebooks you see people using on the road, in coffee shops, in colleges, and so on. Microsoft wants a piece of that “Creative Class”† action, and the more of it they can funnel onto Office 365 and Azure subscriptions, the better. The move to a no-charge Windows licence is like Gillette handing out free razors. Apple and Microsoft can make far more money on services than they ever could hawking hardware and software.
You may have found the dragon behind the facade!! MS thinks it needs to own all aspects - - - what is interesting is most companies that have done these kind of shenanigans merely developed their demise! Dee
| From: Giles Orr <gilesorr@gmail.com> | Or, as a friend of mine put it, 'the concept of "embrace, extend, | extinguish" hasn't been lost.' Interesting theory for why Microsoft is doing this. Now another question: why is Canonical doing this? - piles of money from Microsoft? (I have no idea if Microsoft is paying.) - piles of fame / market share? - another desperate attempt to break out of the linux ghetto? (Like their various tablet and phone attempts.) Plenty of what Ubuntu does grates on me, but that may be unfair. - making it easy to use stuff that isn't open source in a variety of ways, some of which seem legally questionable (closed source kernel drivers, patented codecs, ZFS [open source but legally incompatible with GPLed code], Adobe Flash, ...) - eclipsing the Debian project. In a totally valid way. - producing little code and not sharing well what they do produce. Summary: not following community norms, and being way too successful in this approach. The strongest Linux distro company is Red Hat. It appears that Microsoft goes out of its way to avoid helping Red Hat. Divide and conquer? On the other hand, even though I like Red Hat, I don't want just one successful distro company.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On the other hand, even though I like Red Hat, I don't want just one successful distro company.
https://youcanlinux.wordpress.com/suse-expert-days-2016/ - -- Daniel Villarreal http://www.youcanlinux.org youcanlinux@gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW/zv5AAoJEPJRiTioPntJP4AIAIkDz90Sm7SHXZ+wYMgiyinS 8gj9FVpWlXckaijhRkbb8h9lD0vWmibjnbH4Pz8yFkGS11fb7Hd6jzDcVYLUmTW6 Ieni7+YvZ22rJQwrVzCJ2Hu/yrlwFJJHjXKA6Z59LWTCgwZBF2WfImkAPPCUqG5H Y9lfBtwC0i+RkXQuuLgkuykKcsXPmWulMgf0xFNvmTIZoRrikPqkq1hPo7ONp7bX KOt4mQ1FDGZxvYJwz9YLiDQHiS91ZgOOK4tRWxKq4dztYX0fVcF41FlU4Em8nJ/k Xps7rtUZ4bqm6Qu6oigRq4x+aXt3/VKubPDstCwXNeKSesT5JVdpY7Hjg9W8gvE= =6uLd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2 April 2016 at 04:32, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@mimosa.com> wrote: Now another question: why is Canonical doing this?
That's easy. The business model for Canonical (as it is for any mainstream distro) is to make money from the human factors surrounding FOSS (training, support, documentation). The link with MS offers new opportunities for the Linux services company that knows more about the MS/Linux integration than any other. - Evan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 02/04/16 06:07 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
... why is Canonical doing this? That's easy.
The business model for Canonical (as it is for any mainstream distro) is to make money from the human factors surrounding FOSS (training, support, documentation).
The link with MS offers new opportunities for the Linux services company that knows more about the MS/Linux integration than any other.
I don't imagine Canonical has the Enterprise covered to the extent that RedHat and SUSE do, but please let me know... https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/microsoft-and-red-hat-del iver-new-standard-enterprise-cloud-experiences see here https://goo.gl/EUpOVO https://www.suse.com/partners/alliance-partners/microsoft/ Your choice of GNU/Linux distribution maybe should take into account how inherently secure it is, you might look at the following information. More info at my blog. https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/02/01/on-webkit-security-updates / see here https://goo.gl/5hrWRu See here, ... Sicherheitsmeldungen aller Distributionen... http://www.pro-linux.de/sicherheit/1/1/1.html SUSE Enterprise software manager will indicate actual CVE reports and at a glance you can see which boxen need to be updated, etc. I also just read that RedHat is giving away RHEL to developers... http://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-expands-red-hat-de veloper-program-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-developer-subscription see here http://goo.gl/T4jATX I just attended SUSE Expert Days 2016 and IBM representative Mr. Greg R. Lee spoke about the latest IBM innovations in hardware/processing and sheer power of LinuxONE (R) technology in combination with open-source db's running on SUSE Enterprise Linux, I put up a review at my blog, see below. regards, Daniel Villarreal youcanlinux.org youcanlinux@gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW/7cfAAoJEPJRiTioPntJlrIIAIXNeuzCx6eb23R/1Wwg2+Hn uXiG8f5pM2TfXiIKwxrLTHv/Oj8phKZf+ChUCZBw0r/bhk422nbjFRsv+KitEoUW VnoBGMYAuQaqAIxBlCktPAl9BlkiJBID8bPttOL51lyyvHfU09FJwcgGIAgEesH9 6FUIHi2fw56N7agQxSozZ8LS3YMX+bNco7r7noDlQTTDwkvB6DCUkLY8r4ch/MV0 HomjHIYrli6qHm6ezd+xtWBLLRbmx2EY35C26p9kLGs15hIcyVo+FswHESKx1vlc WQYVkI0Ybs66KJc89RZBQMLJbtdEnUFfNT11B32QJe/a8oZAAi+q80dCJ38EAoU= =oCCs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 1 April 2016 at 03:39, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@mimosa.com> wrote:
If you really want linux on Windows, I would guess virtualbox or the like would do a better job.
If you want command-line tools to muck within the Windows environment, cygwin probably does the job as well.
Why would you assume these things, not having actually compared them? If the new facility allows native execution of Ubuntu binaries, wouldn't a cross-platform developer prefer having exactly the same shell? Is cygwin 100% in feature sync with bash? While I can think of many reasons why to continue to prefer Linux as the underlying OS unless absolutely necessary, IMO this move is significant for anyone who has to frequently work in both worlds. It also confirms the altogether reasonable joint admissions by Microsoft and Canonical that: - The FOSS desktop as we know it (X, GNOME/KDE/XFCE etc) is as mainstream now as it will ever be, meaning "not much" (though semi-FOSS mutations such as MacOS, Android and ChromeOS have certainly done well for themselves) - Microsoft is a non-player in running the cloud, and if Windows wants to stay relevant it must play friendly with the OS that is dominant in that space at a level it has never done before. It's reasonable to disagree with these premises, many FOSS enthusiasts certainly will. But I think they're valid. This move is part of a realization that the desktop is on the decline and will eventually devolve into niches for administration, development, and creation. It's an attempt to keep it relevant in the first two areas (IMO it has ceded the third to Apple). I see how Windows10 snoops on its users and I dislike Metro as a desktop interface -- so I could never use it as a daily platform, I'm not ditching my Mint desktop so long as the hardware allows it. PS: Windows' not running X is IMO a feature, not a bug. For decades, X has been an impediment to mainstream adoption, and is always many steps behind the state of the tech in proprietary display systems. To this day this means that I can have hardware graphics acceleration under Windows but not Linux -- a significant degradation, until some future kernel or X supports it (maybe). That lag is not compelling enough to lead to a switch away from Linux, but let's not delude ourselves that the choice of a FOSS desktop is not without sacrifice. -- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
This brings back memories... It seems as though Microsoft has implemented a sort of equivalent to IBCS2. That was a kernel library sort of layer that allowed running binary for other UNIX flavours on Linux. Run your old SCO apps on Linux and such...
iBCS2 was actually a system call interface standard and not a library. A few years before the code appeared in Linux a group I worked with had a version of iBCS compatibility running on DOS. We were using an OS developed at the University of Toronto based on the Turing language. There is no reason the windows guys could not develop a system call interface in the same way. All the interfaces are open source so it would not be hard. They will have problems with things like the /proc , /sys and devices. I have a feeling that it will work as well as WINE where about 10% of the stuff I want to run will do anything at all. On 03/31/2016 09:54 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
This brings back memories...
It seems as though Microsoft has implemented a sort of equivalent to IBCS2.
That was a kernel library sort of layer that allowed running binary for other UNIX flavours on Linux. Run your old SCO apps on Linux and such...
--- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- Alvin Starr || voice: (905)513-7688 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
This brings back memories...
It seems as though Microsoft has implemented a sort of equivalent to IBCS2.
Back when software was released for BSD but not Linux. How things have changed for the better.
That was a kernel library sort of layer that allowed running binary for other UNIX flavours on Linux. Run your old SCO apps on Linux and such...
So Microsoft is saying Linux has made it since they now have to support its binaries? -- Len Sorensen
participants (11)
-
Alvin Starr -
Christopher Browne -
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
Daniel Villarreal -
Evan Leibovitch -
Giles Orr -
James Knott -
Kevin Cozens -
Lennart Sorensen -
o1bigtenor -
Stewart C. Russell