So when is this actually coming out
>>53857639
2045
Bump
im interested too
>>53857639
Who cares?
Here's what it gets you:
>native bash
>native execution of Ubuntu packaged commands
What it doesn't get you:
>Linux services
>the ability to replace batch files with bash scripts that call Windows executables
So, you get all of the disadvantages of simply running an Ubuntu VM without the advantages of an Ubuntu VM.
In terms of *actual use*, it is *literally* identical to simply installing an Ubuntu VM and using shared folders to access your native filesystem. You maybe get some small performance improvement, but who cares, you're only going to be running Bash scripts, not services.
Oh, and you end up doubling your commands. Install git on Windows and install git for Bash on Windows. The shitty Hanselman video tries to sell this as "choice" but it's actually just confusing redundancy.
>>53857788
What exactly is stopping you from calling Windows executable from bash shell?
What exactly is stopping you from running linux userland services?
July I think
>>53857639
>implying
>>53857805
>What exactly is stopping you from calling Windows executable from bash shell?
I have absolutely no idea. It's surely nothing more than one additional layer between bash and the actual PE loader. It boggles my mind that they don't allow Windows executables to be called. Makes zero sense to me.
>What exactly is stopping you from running linux userland services?
I *guess* that it's because they don't provide any kind of services management system. I dunno, they were just adamant in their videos that you can't run services.
>>53857788
>advantages of an ubuntu VM
-----
>disadvantages
>is slow as shit
>Can't access files from the native environment without fuckery
>>53857839
> >is slow as shit
No it isn't.
> >Can't access files from the native environment without fuckery
Enabling shared folders isn't "fuckery".
Do you normally consider fully-supported options that are right there in the UI to be "fuckery"?
>>53857639
is there any advantage to this over msys or cygwin?
>>53857839
>is slow as shit
Not on modern CPUs.
>Can't access files from the native environment without fuckery
I use HFS to send files to my VMs easily, doesn't require shared folder bs that only works with specific operating systems and it even works on Linux hosts with WINE.
>>53857896
if you have used either, you would know
Is this pretty much just integrated cygwin?
>>53858019
No. It's not integrated, except it's integrated.
I mean, it works through low-level API interception. But it doesn't interoperate in any meaningful way. All you can do is run bash commands and interact with the filesystem. If you want to run git, then you have to install git using bash, then call that git.
Cygwin interoperates much better, IMO. You can call cygwin commands from any old command prompt, and you can call Windows executables from the cygwin command prompt. But it's slower.
>>53857823
>I have absolutely no idea. It's surely nothing more than one additional layer between bash and the actual PE loader. It boggles my mind that they don't allow Windows executables to be called. Makes zero sense to me.
You are simply mistaken about Windows executables not being allowed to be called.
>I dunno, they were just adamant in their videos that you can't run services.
I watched the whole thing and there was not such a statement made.
>>53858111
>You are simply mistaken about Windows executables not being allowed to be called.
I don't think I am. I spent way too much time here and on Reddit asking questions, reading blog posts, and watching videos.
I have not seen a single shred of evidence that a Windows executable can be called from the Bash prompt.
>I watched the whole thing and there was not such a statement made.
Watch more videos and read more blog posts. They state repeatedly that you cannot use it to run services.
>>53858135
The bash prompt is just another kind of executable. In addition to being able to execute PE files, Windows will also be able to execute ELF files. Nothing suggests you will be restricted in a way that you think you will be.
>They state repeatedly that you cannot use it to run services.
There is no such thing on linux as service. Simple as that.
And, again, they do not state that. That's your misinterpretation, just like with running Windows executables.
So they are remaking cygwin for no reason? Wow what groundbreaking tech.
>>53858182
It's conceptually different from cygwin.
>>53858111
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3050473/windows/heres-how-windows-10s-ubuntu-based-bash-shell-will-actually-work.html
>Lastly, these Bash tools won’t be able to interact directly with any Windows tools. You can’t run a Bash command from PowerShell, or a Windows command from within Bash. This means you can’t use Bash scripts to automate Windows commands, unfortunately. Bash command-line tools get access to the same files Windows does, but that’s it!
Now, personally I was hoping that "Windows tools" meant "Windows commands", meaning actual, native commands in the CMD environment (e.g. "dir", "del" but not "attrib" which is an external executable). However, everyone I interacted with was adamant that NO Windows executables can be called whatsoever.
>>53858173
>The bash prompt is just another kind of executable.
That's completely irrelevant. What matters is what sort of PE loader is supported BY THE BASH EXECUTABLE ITSELF.
> In addition to being able to execute PE files, Windows will also be able to execute ELF files. Nothing suggests you will be restricted in a way that you think you will be.
You are wrong. Show me a single shred of evidence that the bash shell will be able to run Windows executables. Anything. I want to believe, but I don't.
>There is no such thing on linux as service. Simple as that.
What the fuck are you talking about?
>And, again, they do not state that. That's your misinterpretation, just like with running Windows executables.
Prove it.
>>53857639
Settle down, anon, it was just an April fools joke.
>>53858189
Except for the part where it's not.
Cygwin runs posix code through a dll to translate to windows calls.
Windows 10(TM) Groundbreaking bash technology clones ubuntu and runs code though a special "translation layer" in the kernel to translate to windows calls.
Amazing. It's cygwin but with more ubuntu and apt-get action. Except the majority of the packages you apt-get will be broken, unlike cygwin.
>>53858192
>>Lastly, these Bash tools won’t be able to interact directly with any Windows tools. You can’t run a Bash command from PowerShell, or a Windows command from within Bash. This means you can’t use Bash scripts to automate Windows commands, unfortunately. Bash command-line tools get access to the same files Windows does, but that’s it!
Yeah. Just as I said, misunderstanding based on your ignorance.
"Commands" in this context means commands built into shell - stuff like echo, which does not exist as a separate binary and is instead part of bash or cmd.exe.
>Show me a single shred of evidence that the bash shell will be able to run Windows executables.
Evidence is the fact that they never claimed otherwise.
>What the fuck are you talking about?
Literally what I said. On windows, there is a specialized format for services. In Linux, there are none.
>>53858204
It is. The new system runs binaries from Linux directly. Cygwin requires you to to compile everything.
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Windows 10, is in fact, GNU/Windows, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Windows. Windows is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free* botnet in a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Windows 10, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a botnet, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Windows is the botnet: the program in the system that transmits the user's information to Microsoft's servers. Windows 10 is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Windows is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Windows added, or GNU/Windows. All the so-called Windows distributions are really distributions of GNU/Windows!
>>53858227
Oh really? I thought it just translated all the posix specific calls to windows calls. Couldn't you use the same binaries since they are box x86 arch?
I guess it is pretty cool if you can use native linux toolkit right on windows so no porting work has to be done.
>>53858227
>"Commands" in this context means commands built into shell -
You have absolutely zero evidence of this.
Put up or shut up.
>Evidence is the fact that they never claimed otherwise.
Show me a single sentence or video with a timestamp where they say you can call Windows executables. Anything. I just watched the video where they spoke solely of ELF executables.
>Literally what I said. On windows, there is a specialized format for services. In Linux, there are none.
I'll take What is a Daemon for $500, Alex.
Absolutely everything you're adamant about is based on pure speculation. Just give a single citation, that's all it takes.
Again, I *want* you to be right, but you haven't provided anything other than personal conjecture.
>>53858256
You have absolutely zero evidence of this.
Put up or shut up.
Show me a single sentence or video with a timestamp where they say you can call Windows executables.
>I'll take What is a Daemon for $500, Alex.
Daemon is literally an executable file with absolutely no distinguishing features about it apart from the fact that the user is probably going to want to run it in background.
>Absolutely everything you're adamant about is based on pure speculation.
Absolutely everything you're adamant about is based on pure speculation.
>>53858256
They said in a video you can't mix environments. You can only access the filesystem.
It's for toolkits not hosting linux services they said many, many times.
>>53858246
If your first sentence is about cygwin, then, well, obviously they could, because that's what the new MS thing does, but that's not what cygwin does. Also it would be a lot more difficult for cygwin developers to do because they'd have to put your code inside Windows kernel while not being kernel devs themselves.
>>53858227
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2016/C906
@12:20
"But I can't go and run Notepad, because I'm not running on Wind... I'm not running Windows"
"Right, exactly."
"And arguably, some people were kind of complaining ... well wait a second, I want to run Notepad. Well then you should run Cygwin."
Later they talk about installing bash's "git" which is separate from Windows git. Why would they even discuss this if you could simply call the Windows git executable?
>>53857639
In 1995, the latest stable release 2 months ago.
>>53858274
Would you care to point me to where they say linux services are impossible? I watched the whole build presentation, and it's not mentioned.
>>53858270
>Show me a single sentence or video with a timestamp where they say you can call Windows executables.
Are you so dumb that you forgot to invert the logic there? Anyway, I just did.
>Daemon is literally an executable file with absolutely no distinguishing features about it apart from the fact that the user is probably going to want to run it in background.
>run it in background.
That is EXACTLY what a daemon is, and EXACTLY what a service is, and EXACTLY what you CANNOT do from this bash shell. You could run the service directly in a background bash shell, but you CANNOT start the service and continue using the same bash shell instance.
>Absolutely everything you're adamant about is based on pure speculation.
No, it's based on exactly what has been written and recorded about it. I've provided two citations now. You've provided none.
All you have to do is provide a SINGLE citation of anyone on the team discussing execution of PE executables from the bash shell. Just one.
>>53858274
Huh? That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Did you mean to reply to someone else?
>>53858306
>As Microsoft notes, “This is a developer toolset to help you write and build all your code for all your scenarios and platforms.” It’s not a full Ubuntu virtual machine. You can’t use it to host servers, as you could on Linux. If you need that, you can always install Linux in a virtual machine using Microsoft’s Hyper-V technology, VirtualBox, VMware, or something similar.”
>Lastly, these Bash tools won’t be able to interact directly with any Windows tools. You can’t run a Bash command from PowerShell, or a Windows command from within Bash. This means you can’t use Bash scripts to automate Windows commands, unfortunately. Bash command-line tools get access to the same files Windows does, but that’s it!
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3050473/windows/heres-how-windows-10s-ubuntu-based-bash-shell-will-actually-work.html
>>53858332
>but you CANNOT start the service and continue using the same bash shell instance.
Are you so ignorant about how bash works that you don't even know that.
Put a dollar sign after your command and it is executed in backround. In bash.
It is literally not possible that this functionality is included because bash is shipped in its original form, as in ubuntu, where it works.
>>53858332
You can't fork?
>>53858356
s/a dollar sign/an ampersand/
>>53858359
People are speculating using their ass as a source. The ubuntu guy who worked on that said you can't use screen and tmux yet but it's a goal.
Can we now get ext4 too? Or are we still stuck on this ntfs piece of shit
>>53858359
@4:30ish and later @11:50ish in the previously linked interview he discusses fork. They're not real processes. They're threads. There's no way to manage or even see these processes from Windows.
>>53858356
>Are you so ignorant about how bash works that you don't even know that.
Given the amount of vague hand waving they're doing in this video, I'm not going to make any assumptions about basic spawning working from this weirdo bash shell.
Honestly, I don't know why you're so adamant about your speculation.
>>53858425
>weirdo bash shell.
It is. An unchanged. Executable. From Ubuntu.
>>53858227
Come on, you retarded cunt, watch the video and admit that there is nothing but evidence that you're wrong.
>>53858436
You. Have. No. Evidence. To. Support. That. Claim.
None.
You also have absolutely ZERO basis for making assumptions about what fork behavior they support.
>>53857853
Give me one VM that actually renders at 60FPS or more with no stuttering
Virtualbox and VMware both are shit and lag like crazy
Shared folders are awful because then you have to sort through shit by hand, and you can't natively run commands on stuff. If I have a nice program that converts filetypes but it only works on a linux system, I'm not going to want to move that file to the virtual machine and then convert it before moving it back, I want to do it right there in the folder.
>>53858456
>You. Have. No. Evidence. To. Support. That. Claim.
>i am THIS mad
>>53858477
>still providing no evidence
>>53858491
Still waiting, faggot.
>>53858456
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2016/P488
At 4:10.
OS image is grabbed directly from Canonical with no changes.
>>53858499
nice argument
>>53858507
Try again with better evidence and not some microshill bullshit.
>>53858507
>OS image is grabbed directly from Canonical with no changes.
Huh? "OS image"? That's not what they said.
Thread summary: So it's essentially chroot in windows?
>>53858507
It doesn't even play, I refuse to install Silverlight.
>>53858523
It is a direct quote from original source.
>>53858526
There is no interpretation of what they said that would lead you to believe they are running a modified bash.
>>53858468
>Give me one VM that actually renders at 60FPS or more with no stuttering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16dbAUrtMX4
>>53858534
Plays for me and I don't have silverlight. Learn to internet.
>>53857958
>Not on modern CPUs.
so its slow as shit, you just wont notice unless you do resource heavy operations
>>53857639
Who cares, it's shit.
>>53858562
It's slow as shit if you consider a 15% perf drop to be that. Personally I don't think that's a big deal with how powerful modern Intel CPUs are. Maybe on AMD 15% would be a huge deal.
>>53858468
>Give me one VM that actually renders at 60FPS or more with no stuttering
Sounds like there is something wrong with your computer, not the VM.
>>53857823
If a layer call proxy needs to be written, a proxy will be written. Big deal. Much easier than MSYS or Cygwin, easier to reverse-engineer.
I know I've cancelled my Windows ports.
Why are you guys so hung up on this?
They have said it out very clearly, that this whole thing is ment for developer, to give them access to the tools they are used to using when developing in an Linux environment, in windows.
Are you developing something in ruby, and want the testing environment and such they have for Linux? Then this is for you!
Want something to make scripts and to manage your windows? Stick to powershell.
>>53858416
NTFS itself is p good, it's the native driver that's distilled ass.
This is probably a stupid question but:
Does any of this possibly mean that a desktop environment from linux could run ontop of Windows?
Like could I have Gnome or xfce or hell even Unity running on Windows...?
>>53860720
Can someone just Yes or No this..?
>>53857639
I think an article said mid-April.
>>53860720
There's a very very good chance of this.
You can already run a native X client on Windows to connect to UNIX / Linux servers. You can always do such a workaround if necessary.
>>53858354
>>It’s not a full Ubuntu virtual machine. You can’t use it to host servers, as you could on Linux.
So services == servers, gotcha senpai
>>53857639
I thought that was an April Fools joke
>>53860265
It's overall decent, though its fragmentation prevention is ass, not sure if that's an effect of the filesystem or the driver. Damn thing needs frequent defrags on HDDs when not even remotely near full. Compare to ext4, which I've run on a torrent box at ~99.8% full for years, never defragged, and it's at 0.17% fragmentation. Write performance also stays high far closer to 0 bytes free than it does on NTFS.
![Cez9t6mWsAEdgNX[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2cHi5B4.jpg "Cez9t6mWsAEdgNX[1].jpg")
The Canonical guy just leaked the next Insider build release.
April 6
Also zsh works.
>>53864628
>Ubuntu on Windows
WHY
>WIN'botnet'DOWS
>CAN'spyware'ONICAL
Do you really are falling to this pushed meme?
Good millenials.
>>53858534
It shouldn't require Silverlight unless you're using a meme OS/browser that can't open HTML5 H.264 videos.
>>53864658
not only that. If the command you type is not available it recommends you to install real Ubuntu iso.
>>53858468
literally install ubuntu server and treat the VM window as a command prompt.
Share the root of your drive as a shared folder.
Are you retarded?
not being able to call exes from within bash -> bash on windows discarded
the list of syscalls they want to adapt to NT kernel
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/syscalls.h
>>53864753
they are listening to people so at least bash scripts could run exes
>>53864753
why do you need to run an exe from unix world?
>>53864922
Because one of the things that this would be truly useful for is scripting Windows things. A scripting system is of a lot less use if it can't run the majority of things on the system.
Just think, you could have bash scripts that call Microsoft's make to build your VisualStudio project, then run its exe and kick off an AHK or whatever script to send clicks to it to run test cases.
>>53857639
Official release date is July 2016
Windows 10 Build 1607
>>53857639
>[APPLAUSE]
>[CHEERING]
>>53865122
they want you to use Powershell for that. If you really want to compile inside bash then just cross-compile a windows binary inside bash.
>>53865324
What is the use case for Bash in Windows then? People wanted it because cmd is bad and Powershell is icky and verbose to write things in.
Also, MSYS and Cygwin do most of what this bash is capable of, do allow running exes, and will run on whatever version of Windows you have.
>>53865393
This is way faster than msys2.
What Microsoft wants is give developers the possibility to run opensource command-line linux applications.
And they are interested only in typical developer "sceneries". Like for example git clone a repository, compile with gcc and upload with ssh.
>>53865393
Bash on Windows has never been useful, ever.
Finally year of the Linux desktop. Brought to you by Microsoft.
>>53860720
>Does any of this possibly mean that a desktop environment from linux could run ontop of Windows?
Using Bash for Windows ? I doubt it.
But it's already possible using Cygwin, particularly Cygwin/X.
I ran the MATE Desktop Environment + KDE Kate without issues (aside from a shit font rendering).
>>53864628
>apt
evrytiem
>>53866016The big news for this version is that we included a new “apt” binary that combines the most commonly used commands from apt-get and apt-cache. The commands are the same as their apt-get/apt-cache counterparts but with slightly different configuration options.
>>53865393
from one of the developers:
The Bash environment is a high-fidelity Linux-like environment – tools running in Bash don’t even know they’re not running on Linux!
As such, if you want to be able to call Linux java, then you’ll need to install the Java bits into Bash.
If you want a Bash-like command-line, but with access to Windows apps, tools, etc. then Cygwin is a better option since that’s a Win32 ported version of the GNU tools.
HOWEVER, if you want an environment with high-fidelity Linux-like behaviors, then you’ll want Bash on Windows.
Note: Windows and *NIX are fundamentally different in many important ways, both with strengths and weaknesses. As we’ve stated many times now, Bash running on Windows is a developer convenience – it is not a complete platform play.
![Cowsay[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/w2lUjQ2.png "Cowsay[1].png")
>>53864628
>wait failed
so no semaphores
home = bash is mighty problematic, yo
you wouldn't want to to report you to the feelings police, would you steve?
>>53864704
Does this mean that the Windows bootloader will actually display Ubanto as an OS, or will they continue to pretend Windows is the only OS to exist ever?
>>53874611
every Windows team think different. If the command line team could choose they will make appear Ubuntu on boot menu but the core boot team wouldn't be very happy about it.
