I have the bash shell installed on Windows 10 beta, but I cannot access the Internet with the shell even though it works with Microsoft Edge. I filled out the /etc/resolv.conf with the nameservers, but I cannot create a ip route as there is not networking device to bind to. Is there a way to create a networking device node manually? Thanks. I cannot run apt-get update.
>>54000239
use an static IP and DNS
or add 8.8.8.8 to the /etc/resolv.conf
Even if you can connect, what repos would you use? As of right now, i have no ideia if anyone is serving windows compatible binaries on apt-get repos. By the way: is it a complete linux command line or is it powershell with some aliases?
>>54000310
dude it runs ELF 64bit binaries. The same exact binaries from the Ubuntu repositories
I have this:
>>54000316
Yes.
>>54000316
Now this got interesting, supporting windows systems will be less of a pain in the ass.
>>54000326
are you using a firewall/antivirus or something?
anyway look if someone has that problem here
https://github.com/Microsoft/BashOnWindows/issues
>>54000360
No, just a VMware 12 instance. I am using Edge to post here, so the client VM has networking, just not the shell. Maybe if I run the shell as Admin?
>>54000380
nope. in VM I think you need to change the NET to bridge mode or something
>>54000239
go away pajeet
Can you run Windows .exe files from bash shells?
>>54000239
How do you get win10 beta
Im insider and all that but in windows update the slider that would control what updates O am allowed to download is greyed
I also get a red text saying some settings are managed by your organization
Im not part of one and build my PC by my self
>>54000408
No. Just keep the linux world isolated of superior Windows.
>>54000422
just get the ISO and clean install
>>54000440
>No. Just keep the linux world isolated of superior Windows.
Have you tried? Actually putting an exe file where the shell would find it and running it?
>>54000452
Yes.
>>54000452
it says is not an executable. From bash it will only run ELF executables.
>>54000481
>>54000478
Hilarious. They actually managed to make it useless.
>>54000531
they actually managed to make it safer
>>54000478
>Microsoft edge
get out
>>54000665
Yeahhhh, MS stuff is well known for safety.
Now in addition to that you also don't have functionality.
How long does it take to get the win10 beta after getting a insider?
>>54000865
up to 48 hours. It's better to download the ISO and clean install it
>>54000678
Those statements show how ignorant you are.
>>54001095
Incorrect.
>>54001107
>Yeahhhh, MS stuff is well known for safety.
If you knew anything about security you'd understand that both Windows and Linux are comparable in terms of security. The more people use a platform, the more attractive it will be to malware developers and those who wish to exploit it.
>Now in addition to that you also don't have functionality.
What? Running exe's from within the Linux subsystem? Why would you expect that functionality?
>>54000239
Try this:
rm -rf
>>54001285
Fail.
>>54000239
Can I SSH into the windows 10 bash from my chinkpad?
>>54001248
>Why would you expect that functionality?
1. The way MS explained their system to work, there should be absolutely nothing stopping them from allowing me to run Windows executables from bash and Linux executables from cmd.
2. I already use cygwin for exactly that functionality. I don't need their solution if it doesn't even allow me to do what I am already doing (and please spare me the explanation about how their system is different from cygwin - I know the difference, I'm talking about functionality expectations).
>If you knew anything about security you'd understand that both Windows and Linux are comparable in terms of security.
Earlier disk sharing services were designed to be insecure. In newer versions they introduced an improved method, actually secure, while still supporting old insecure methods. No, Linux is nowhere near this level of incompetence.
>>54001313
>literary can install any linux app
>can I?
>>54001361
Most won't run because syscalls are not implemented yet. And then there are also arbitrary restrictions MS deemed necessary to place. It's a valid question.
>>54001390
Latest build lets even run X server.
>>54001361
>literally can install any linux app
>linux
>app
kys
>>54001436
Binary = app
Executeble = app
Application = app
Way before Job's had the idea.
>>54001390
syscalls implemented so far (1/2):LxpSyscall_ACCEPT
LxpSyscall_ACCEPT4
LxpSyscall_ACCESS
LxpSyscall_ALARM
LxpSyscall_ARCH_PRCTL
LxpSyscall_BIND
LxpSyscall_BRK
LxpSyscall_CAPGET
LxpSyscall_CAPSET
LxpSyscall_CHDIR
LxpSyscall_CHMOD
LxpSyscall_CHOWN
LxpSyscall_CLOCK_GETRES
LxpSyscall_CLOCK_GETTIME
LxpSyscall_CLOCK_NANOSLEEP
LxpSyscall_CLONE
LxpSyscall_CLOSE
LxpSyscall_CONNECT
LxpSyscall_CREAT
LxpSyscall_DUP
LxpSyscall_DUP2
LxpSyscall_DUP3
LxpSyscall_EPOLL_CREATE
LxpSyscall_EPOLL_CREATE1
LxpSyscall_EPOLL_CTL
LxpSyscall_EPOLL_WAIT
LxpSyscall_EVENTFD
LxpSyscall_EVENTFD2
LxpSyscall_EXECVE
LxpSyscall_EXIT
LxpSyscall_EXIT_GROUP
LxpSyscall_FACCESSAT
LxpSyscall_FADVISE64
LxpSyscall_FCHDIR
LxpSyscall_FCHMOD
LxpSyscall_FCHMODAT
LxpSyscall_FCHOWN
LxpSyscall_FCHOWNAT
LxpSyscall_FCNTL64
LxpSyscall_FDATASYNC
LxpSyscall_FLOCK
LxpSyscall_FORK
LxpSyscall_FSETXATTR
LxpSyscall_FSTAT64
LxpSyscall_FSTATAT64
LxpSyscall_FSTATFS64
LxpSyscall_FSYNC
LxpSyscall_FTRUNCATE64
LxpSyscall_FUTEX
LxpSyscall_GETCPU
LxpSyscall_GETCWD
LxpSyscall_GETDENTS
LxpSyscall_GETDENTS64
LxpSyscall_GETDENTS_Common
LxpSyscall_GETEGID
LxpSyscall_GETEUID
LxpSyscall_GETGID
LxpSyscall_GETGROUPS
LxpSyscall_GETPEERNAME
LxpSyscall_GETPGID
LxpSyscall_GETPGRP
LxpSyscall_GETPID
LxpSyscall_GETPPID
LxpSyscall_GETPRIORITY
LxpSyscall_GETRESGID
LxpSyscall_GETRESUID
LxpSyscall_GETRLIMIT
LxpSyscall_GETRUSAGE
LxpSyscall_GETSID
>>54001515
You can just say not all and it's going to be enough.
As long as some calls are not implemented, "will it run" is going to be a valid question.
As long as all special devices that programs depend on, "will it run" is going to be a valid question.
>>54001515
(2/3)LxpSyscall_GETSOCKNAME
LxpSyscall_GETSOCKOPT
LxpSyscall_GETTID
LxpSyscall_GETTIMEOFDAY
LxpSyscall_GETUID
LxpSyscall_GETXATTR
LxpSyscall_GET_ROBUST_LIST
LxpSyscall_GET_THREAD_AREA
LxpSyscall_INOTIFY_ADD_WATCH
LxpSyscall_INOTIFY_INIT
LxpSyscall_INOTIFY_RM_WATCH
LxpSyscall_IOCTL
LxpSyscall_IOPRIO_SET
LxpSyscall_KILL
LxpSyscall_LCHOWN
LxpSyscall_LINK
LxpSyscall_LINKAT
LxpSyscall_LISTEN
LxpSyscall_LSEEK
LxpSyscall_LSTAT64
LxpSyscall_MADVISE
LxpSyscall_MKDIR
LxpSyscall_MKDIRAT
LxpSyscall_MKNOD
LxpSyscall_MLOCK
LxpSyscall_MMAP
LxpSyscall_MOUNT
LxpSyscall_MPROTECT
LxpSyscall_MREMAP
LxpSyscall_MSYNC
LxpSyscall_MUNLOCK
LxpSyscall_MUNMAP
LxpSyscall_NANOSLEEP
LxpSyscall_NEWUNAME
LxpSyscall_OPEN
LxpSyscall_OPENAT
LxpSyscall_PAUSE
LxpSyscall_PERF_EVENT_OPEN
LxpSyscall_PERSONALITY
LxpSyscall_PIPE
LxpSyscall_PIPE2
LxpSyscall_PIPE_Common
LxpSyscall_POLL
LxpSyscall_PRCTL
LxpSyscall_PREAD64
LxpSyscall_PSELECT6
LxpSyscall_PTRACE
LxpSyscall_PWRITE64
LxpSyscall_READ
LxpSyscall_READLINK
LxpSyscall_READV
LxpSyscall_REBOOT
LxpSyscall_RECVFROM
LxpSyscall_RECVMSG
LxpSyscall_RENAME
LxpSyscall_RMDIR
>>54001515
>>54001537
(1/2)
(2/3)
>>54001537
(3/3)LxpSyscall_RT_SIGACTION
LxpSyscall_RT_SIGPENDING
LxpSyscall_RT_SIGPROCMASK
LxpSyscall_RT_SIGRETURN
LxpSyscall_RT_SIGSUSPEND
LxpSyscall_RT_SIGTIMEDWAIT
LxpSyscall_SCHED_GETPARAM
LxpSyscall_SCHED_GETSCHEDULER
LxpSyscall_SCHED_GET_PRIORITY_MAX
LxpSyscall_SCHED_GET_PRIORITY_MIN
LxpSyscall_SCHED_SETAFFINITY
LxpSyscall_SCHED_SETPARAM
LxpSyscall_SCHED_SETSCHEDULER
LxpSyscall_SCHED_YIELD
LxpSyscall_SELECT
LxpSyscall_SENDMMSG
LxpSyscall_SENDMSG
LxpSyscall_SENDTO
LxpSyscall_SETGID
LxpSyscall_SETGROUPS
LxpSyscall_SETITIMER
LxpSyscall_SETPGID
LxpSyscall_SETPRIORITY
LxpSyscall_SETREGID
LxpSyscall_SETRESGID
LxpSyscall_SETRESUID
LxpSyscall_SETREUID
LxpSyscall_SETRLIMIT
LxpSyscall_SETSID
LxpSyscall_SETSOCKOPT
LxpSyscall_SETTIMEOFDAY
LxpSyscall_SETUID
LxpSyscall_SETXATTR
LxpSyscall_SET_ROBUST_LIST
LxpSyscall_SET_THREAD_AREA
LxpSyscall_SET_TID_ADDRESS
LxpSyscall_SHUTDOWN
LxpSyscall_SIGALTSTACK
LxpSyscall_SOCKET
LxpSyscall_SOCKETPAIR
LxpSyscall_SPLICE
LxpSyscall_STAT64
LxpSyscall_STATFS64
LxpSyscall_STATFS64_Common
LxpSyscall_SYMLINK
LxpSyscall_SYNC
LxpSyscall_SYSINFO
LxpSyscall_TEE
LxpSyscall_TGKILL
LxpSyscall_TIME
LxpSyscall_TIMERFD_CREATE
LxpSyscall_TIMERFD_GETTIME
LxpSyscall_TIMERFD_SETTIME
LxpSyscall_TIMES
LxpSyscall_TKILL
LxpSyscall_TRUNCATE64
LxpSyscall_UMASK
LxpSyscall_UMOUNT2
LxpSyscall_UNLINK
LxpSyscall_UNLINKAT
LxpSyscall_UNSHARE
LxpSyscall_UTIME
LxpSyscall_UTIMENSAT
LxpSyscall_UTIMES
LxpSyscall_VFORK
LxpSyscall_WAIT4
LxpSyscall_WAITPID_Common
LxpSyscall_WRITE
LxpSyscall_WRITEV
>>54001548
>>54001512
App is terribly vague. A binary is a file format, en executable is a flag in the filesystem, and an application is a program used by a person.
Can someone install full KDE desktop replace explorer.exe? I
>>54001568
>LxpSyscall_VFORK
MSYS2 got REKT
>>54001598
In windows a executable is a file format, witch is a binary containing compiled code what runs an application.
>>54001515
>>54001537
>>54001568
so Linux programs in order to run just use these syscalls? That sounds too easy.
>>54001736
That's how programs run on a kernel retard
>>54001324
>Earlier disk sharing services were designed to be insecure. In newer versions they introduced an improved method, actually secure, while still supporting old insecure methods. No, Linux is nowhere near this level of incompetence.
Them supporting legacy services while also providing secure versions does not make them "incompetent".
>Why would you expect that functionality? 1. The way MS explained their system to work, there should be absolutely nothing stopping them from allowing me to run Windows executables from bash and Linux executables from cmd.
That we know of. And it's still in beta. It remains to be seen, the project is recent.
>2. I already use cygwin for exactly that functionality. I don't need their solution if it doesn't even allow me to do what I am already doing (and please spare me the explanation about how their system is different from cygwin - I know the difference, I'm talking about functionality expectations).
Then don't use it?
>>54001789
>Them supporting legacy services while also providing secure versions does not make them "incompetent".
Oh yes it does. You could exploit the vulnerabiulity even on a newer system that was promised to be secure.
>It remains to be seen, the project is recent.
And it remains to be useless.
>Then don't use it?
Won't. But I will keep posting comments about how they had one job and they fucked it up.
is truly discouraging only 10 people from Microsoft is working on this thing right now.
>>54001919
Thank god, if it where more they would fuck it up within a hour.
