Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday August 10, @10:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the bashing-Windows dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Microsoft has announced that Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) is coming to Windows Server.

Microsoft's adding it to Windows Server for the same reasons it added it to Windows: it wants developers to have whatever tools they prefer at their disposal.

Sysadmins are also on Redmond's mind, it says. "If you're a server engineer that needs to run node.js, Ruby, Python, Perl, Bash scripts or other tools that expect Linux behaviors, environment or filesystem-layout, the ability to install and run Linux with WSL expands the tools at your disposal on Windows Server."

Redmond snuck WSL into Windows Server Insider Build 16237 without including it in the announcement. It's now issued instructions on how to install it.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

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.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday August 10, @11:33PM (9 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Thursday August 10, @11:33PM (#551938) Journal

    Once they have built a "Linux" development base, they can change some characteristics and implicitly put pressure to modify Linux to make it "Microsoft compatible" or standardize some MS-Linux API/layout etc. Modified, patented, copyrighted to the detrimental of any free project.

    On the positive side it seems Microsoft feels the market pressure of Linux. Adapt or collect dust.

    "FOSS standards are inevitable, your system will adapt" - Borg 2017 ;-)

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 11, @12:18AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @12:18AM (#551966) Homepage Journal

      Anybody who is required to use Visual Studio for C++ work knows exactly what you are talking about.

      " node.js, Ruby, Python, Perl, Bash scripts "

      So before it wasn't at all possible to run any of those on Windows? That's news to me. B-b-but they were missing out on such a huge market and userbase!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:17AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:17AM (#552002)

      But how would that benefit MS? The reason they're doing this is because the rest of the software dev world is passing them by. If they start to throw their weight around again, people will just shrug and deploy Linux.

      They're going with openness for a reason in this and in many other areas - it makes serious commercial sense.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @01:36AM (4 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @01:36AM (#552011) Journal

        If they start to throw their weight around after they have built a large developer base they will have inertia. And can then "force" other free projects to do bad designs or to use copyrighted or patented techniques. There are all sorts of ways this can be abused. Systemd and FAT32-long_filename should give some hints.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 11, @02:58AM (3 children)

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:58AM (#552073)

          That's what forking is for. You go back to what isn't now patent encumbered by Redmond and start work from there. I think that those communities would be incredibly stupid to pay attention to Microsoft for one second. When somebody comes around complaining their MS-Linux isn't working, you remind them that Linux can be installed without MS Server in the mix. In fact, that's predominately how servers ARE operating right now. Without Microsoft :) That and I'm pretty sure it's just as easy to virtualize a true Linux server on the same Windows Server, and then use networking to have your programs/APIs communicate between them. I'm no stranger to making Windows platforms work with Linux platforms, and I didn't need to shove Linux into Microsoft to do it. I wonder which one is truly more cost effective?

          If commercial support contracts get involved they may try and throw their weight around, but again, anybody getting into bed with Microsoft knows this. Or seemingly Redhat at this point.

          "If you're a server engineer that needs to run node.js, Ruby, Python, Perl, Bash scripts or other tools that expect Linux behaviors, environment or filesystem-layout, the ability to install and run Linux with WSL expands the tools at your disposal on Windows Server."

          Uh huh. Except that node.js, Ruby, Python, PERL, and Bash scripts can install and run on BSD and deal with BSD environments, filesystem-layouts, and behaviors. They imply those platforms and languages strongly expect only Linux environments, which may be misleading. For that matter, to my knowledge, all of them except Bash can run on Windows. Bash is pure Linux/BSD commands so probably not, but even Perl has Strawberry and ActiveState Perl to use it on Windows. The rest of them has similar support to run natively and directly in Windows. So why does Window need native support for Linux again?

          I'm certainly not finding any great difficulty using anyone of those in OpenBSD at the moment, excepting Ruby. Not using anything with Ruby under the hood. That I know of.

          So if they fuck up Linux land too much, there might be a ton of refugees coming in to BSD land. That's just fine. Bring us your tired, sick, and wretched poor :)

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @03:23AM (2 children)

            by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @03:23AM (#552089) Journal

            You can fork code but patents are harder to get around.

            One problem area is that manufacturers of cameras, printers, recorders, etc makes use of exFAT a successor to FAT32 which is encumbered. Even if someone implements the code independently, it's fucked with patents. And if a free format is created, manufacturers of equipment will not implement it.

            So why does Window need native support for Linux again?

            Because Windows is particularly messy to get it to work with Unix programs?
            Most Unix machines are just download-configure-compile Done! Windows.. not so.

            When somebody comes around complaining their MS-Linux isn't working

            That is the time to remind that if they go for shit, they pay with $$. Unless it contributes to screwing Microsoft.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @09:29AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @09:29AM (#552220)

              You can fork code but patents are harder to get around.

              Bullshit. Get a lawyer. If the code is forked, if it can be forked, it is not subject to copyright. And if it is, fuck it, change five words in the doc, and rename it. How can we have this level of stupidity and MicroSerf shilling on SoylentNews?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:16PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:16PM (#552283)

                You apparently don't understand the difference between copyright and patents.

                Or maybe you are just trolling?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Friday August 11, @06:16AM

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @06:16AM (#552157) Journal

        But how would that benefit MS? The reason they're doing this is because the rest of the software dev world is passing them by. If they start to throw their weight around again, people will just shrug and deploy Linux.

        What their advantage would be? The plan probably goes something like this:

        Step 1 (embrace): "Hey, you can use all your Linux stuff also on Windows. While at the same time being able to run all that Windows software without any hassle. So don't install Linux, install WSL instead."
        Plan: Get enough people to do exactly that.

        Step 2 (extend): "Hey, we've implemented that cool extra functionality on WSL. You'll not get that in stock Linux."
        Plan: Any software that uses that new functionality is inherently bound to WSL, and thus Windows. Initially that will be a small enough fraction to ignore. But if the plan works out, sooner or later enough software depends on it that people are stuck on Windows even with software that's nominally written for Linux.

        Step 3 (extinguish): "We've implemented another cool feature on WSL. Unfortunately this means we had to make incompatible changes. But don't worry, we've got tools to help you porting your software to the new version"
        Plan: This is done after WSL already achieved dominance. It forces people to choose between writing for stock Linux, or writing for WSL. With WSL being dominant, the majority of suppliers will choose WSL over stock Linux. Linux will fall back to irrelevance.

        Alternatively (or parallel to it) the plan could be that as soon as every Linux distribution either already runs on WSL or can be easily adapted to run on it, they drop signing of Linux bootloaders, with the argument that this is no longer needed; you can just run your Linux under WSL instead. This is after SecureBoot was made mandatory (no way to switch it off). At that point, you're completely dependent on Microsoft in order to run Linux.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:56PM (#552379)

      Once they have built a "Linux" development base, they can change some characteristics and implicitly put pressure to modify Linux to make it "Microsoft compatible"

      I wouldn't worry about Microsoft doing this. SystemD beat them to it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:23AM (#551969)
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:47AM (#551986)

    It's A Trap!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:01AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:01AM (#552027)

    Wouldn't it make more sense to run Win10 inside some version of Linux? That way Linux could be taught to intercept all the "windows call home" traffic and fake suitable replies to keep the Win10 installation happy.

    Or maybe someone has already worked out how to do this?

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @03:29AM (1 child)

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @03:29AM (#552093) Journal

      It's called virtualization. But the much less fussy way is to setup a firewall.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:04AM (#552191)

      Why not run windows 7 as a vm in linux?

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:16AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:16AM (#552087)
    Once again we have the first of the three E's...
    • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Friday August 11, @03:20AM (2 children)

      by canopic jug (3949) on Friday August 11, @03:20AM (#552088)

      It's also link spam to M$ marketeering and not worthy news on any forum. I realize the queues run low but there should be no obligation to start peddling spam as news.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @03:26AM (1 child)

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @03:26AM (#552091) Journal

        It is useful information for those times you have to deal with the pile of shit. Being able to easily port software to MS-Win helps other projects. However if MS does any shit it will be "sorry your operating system is broken, upgrade to free Unix right now".

        This also indicates Microsoft feels the pressure from free Unix hard.

        • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Friday August 11, @04:45AM

          by canopic jug (3949) on Friday August 11, @04:45AM (#552120)

          This also indicates Microsoft feels the pressure from free Unix hard.

          I agree on that point. However, they've been feeling it since the 1990's and have effective counter measuers. Lately, they've been able to keep chumps on Windoze by tricking them into running real systems as a guest because they still have the burden of Windoze underneath. That albatross keeps them from having time or ability to work with the guest OS.

          Because M$ provides a defective experience all around, more so for anything non-M$ on top of Windoze, their usual response to such defects is to blame the other systems and suggest a purely Windoze environment as the obvious solution. So I see articles like these as a measure to keep people and businesses, and especially schools, from leaving Windoze at all as it remains the host system underneath. They're really scared that anyone will find out that it is possible to run anything else and even more scared that it would actually happen.

          If a real OS gets run "on bare metal" then actual comparisons can be made and M$ will fail hard. As long as M$ can keep the real OS as a guest on a Windoze host, they have any number of tricks and distractions to block progress.

          --
          Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday August 11, @03:34AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday August 11, @03:34AM (#552097) Journal

    The wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] on WSL in 2016 claims that "The Windows Subsystem for Linux is a version of Ubuntu Linux". So does this means that WSL is a systemd environment?

    If it is..
    if( getenv("systemd") == YES )
        die("fuck you");

    ;-)

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by engblom on Friday August 11, @04:52AM (2 children)

    by engblom (556) on Friday August 11, @04:52AM (#552121)

    People maintaining windows servers have for a long time been using Cygwin when they need some basic *nix tools. If MS begins to modify WSFL in a such way that it is not compatible, people will just move back to Cygwin. I would say that Windows itself is a bigger trap, not WSFL.

    I wonder if WSFL supports having openssh-server running on Windows?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:08AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:08AM (#552192)

      That assumes that at that time, Cygwin is still maintained (if WSL is available, reliable and usable for long enough time, people will lose interest in Cygwin). After a certain amount of bit-rot, going back is no longer just a matter of installing it.

      • (Score: 2) by engblom on Friday August 11, @12:03PM

        by engblom (556) on Friday August 11, @12:03PM (#552239)

        What you say is not an impossible scenario, however Cygwin will be needed for quite a long time still as WSL only supports Windows Server 2016 (and probably future versions). Everybody running older systems still need to use Cygwin.

(1)