Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday July 11 2017, @05:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish dept.

Here's a statement that would have been unimaginable in previous years: Ubuntu has arrived in the Windows Store. As promised back in May, you can now download a flavor of the popular Linux distribution to run inside Windows 10. It won't compare to a conventional Ubuntu installation, as it's sandboxed (it has limited interaction with Windows) and is focused on running command line utilities like bash or SSH. However, it also makes running a form of Linux relatively trivial. You don't have to dual boot, install a virtual machine or otherwise jump through any hoops beyond a download and ticking a checkbox.

Source: Engadget


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday July 11 2017, @06:56PM (5 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 11 2017, @06:56PM (#537738) Journal

    They are running a (almost certainly crippled) Ubuntu in a container. A container (in this instance) is a just thin wrapper around the GPL.

    Still, using the free Microsoft Virtual PC you can run the full Ubuntu or any other Linux. (Yes, I know you glibly asserted that never worked, but I've used it in the past and I assure you it did work). And far more capable Virtualization platforms are freely available.

    So I doubt your "Preventing exposure" theory.

    Anyone with a conceptual grasp of running linux or a need to run Linux in or out of a container or virtual machine would certainly already know about "Better Technology". The theory that this is to provide SSH capability to windows also seems bogus, since that is freely available (without the constraints of a container).

    You have to realize that Microsoft itself did not provide this package. Microsoft simply ALLOWED it in the store. The publisher is Canonical Group Limited. One has to wonder how much of their remaining sliver of soul they had to sell in order to get Microsoft to agree to this.

    I'd be wondering if they even provide a scripting interface to the container. Doing so could be seen as making it an option part of the Windows release, which starts treading very close to certain interpretations of the GPL.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @07:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @07:45PM (#537763)

    You have to realize that Microsoft itself did not provide this package. Microsoft simply ALLOWED it in the store.

    Well bless their heart.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @07:55PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2017, @07:55PM (#537771)

    A container (in this instance) is a just thin wrapper around the GPL.

    Wat

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Tuesday July 11 2017, @08:36PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 11 2017, @08:36PM (#537781) Journal

      Think about it. I'm sure even an AC can get the concept.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:04AM (#537985)

        The GPL is a license, even metaphorically it doesn't make sense as no container for the GPL is needed to run userland utilities on Windows.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 11 2017, @09:40PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday July 11 2017, @09:40PM (#537807) Journal

    Next.. would they allow say OpenBSD the same way?