Ubuntu on Windows 10

[bashiergui]

I think the real loser is VMWare - suddenly does one really need it anymore?

Enterprises use vmware to run virtualized servers. I can't see how this would affect their market share in any measurable way.

[Geoffrey_Arndt]

+1 bashiergui . . . . Additionally, as long as Canonical doesn't enter into exclusive "patent" exemption & exclusive use contracts with MS . . . , then this is pnly another agreement allowing easier development of cross functionall apps.

If Canonical were to pull off agreement similar to MS-Novell in 2006 (or thereabouts), then there would be cause for concern (big time). That's why I quit use Suse that year, despite it being a great OS, with much better gui tools for hardware config. than any other distro with possible exception of Mageia et-all. (no, . . . system settings not even close to Yast in functionality).

[QDR06VV9]

system settings not even close to Yast in functionality).

+1 Agreed I was using Suse as a tester in thoses days got tired of listening to them complaining about MS and the deal they had struck(Signed) with them at the time...bailed ship and landed here.
But I do miss the YAST(Yet Another Software Tool).

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Enterprises use vmware to run virtualized servers. I can't see how this would affect their market share in any measurable way.

+1

Before I retired I was involved in building a few virtualized data centers.

[slooksterpsv]

I wanted to voice my thoughts on this move... surprisingly, I'm glad Canonical and Microsoft are working together on this. The thing is, the more cross-platform we can integrate environments without having to using VMs, Shared Drives, etc. the easier it becomes for development overall. Granted, this isn't for GUI services, but suffice to say I'm excited. There are so many things I've wanted in the Windows CLI that Command Prompt and Powershell just couldn't do, even with the .NET integration. Fluid tools were missing, especially those I've grown very accustomed to such as awk, sed, and nano.

I know a lot of people may be on the fence, but here's the thing. Microsoft is adding Linux architecture to Windows, granted in a fenced user session, but still. Whose to say that they won't benefit Ubuntu in the long run? Developers will love these tools, I myself will. [PIPE DREAM] Bundle in some QT, a translation from X/Wayland (whichever) to Win32, guess what? More native apps for Linux, built on Windows, using Linux. [/PIPE DREAM]

Now this could, in theory, translate to more apps available for Linux. Get the backend done, slap on a GUI and guess what, more native apps. [PIPE DREAM] Bundle GL, more games[/PIPE DREAM]

I really like the new CEO, he has a strong vision and dream. Let's work together, not separate.

[montag dp]

I really don't see how this promotes development of apps for Linux. Wouldn't it be just as easy to run Linux in a VM if one wanted to do that? The major barrier is not having the tools available to make cross-platform apps, but rather convincing developers to use them in the first place. That means using Qt and OpenGL instead of .NET and DirectX, for example. If developers are invested in MS tools and libraries for creating applications, I don't think this will change that.

No, this is all about removing the benefit of using Linux in the first place, at least from MS's point of view. At least, that's how I see it.

[ian-weisser]

Does this mean that Microsoft just added an entire GPL'd shell (and supporting stack) to Windows?

If so, does this mean that MS-ecosystem applications that use the stack must give up the use of secret APIs? (since they can't modify the source code without sharing)

Does it also mean the writing cross-platform applications just got a whole lot easier?

[buzzingrobot]

No, this is all about removing the benefit of using Linux in the first place, at least from MS's point of view. At least, that's how I see it.

Seems to me an effort to keep developers -- and their employers -- who use Windows in environments that also use Linux in some fashion and who need to write Linux code and/or talk to Linux processes from Windows, within the Windows camp. In that sense, it's an acknowledgment that Linux is legitimate. I don' think Canonical's involvement was strictly necessary to get a Linux subsystem running on the Windows kernel. Access to Canonical repos from "Bash on Windows" would, I'm sure.

We shouldn't expect Microsoft to do anything that makes it easier to leave Windows altogether.

Canonical has said it won't sign any patent deals with MS, which is pretty much the same stance Red Hat is taking in is dealings with the company.

[klytu]

I don't like it.

At all.

I also don't care if that's regarded by some as an overreaction.

Form what i have read, thus far, this will run Ubuntu Linux inside MS Windows. It wont be a virtual Linux, it will be an actual Ubuntu Linux running inside MS Windows due to Microsoft having recently and quietly introduced Linux subsystems in a new Windows 10 Redstone build.

My first thoughts are that this is just another way in which Cannonical are trying to monetise Ubuntu. That, in itself, does not cause me any intrinsic concerns since there are plenty of Linux distros whose philosophy is strictly the opposite of that. It's why I left Ubuntu with the advent of Unity and all of the Amazon nonsense and it is why I came back with the rebirth of Gnome 2 via Ubuntu Mate, as well as Canonical ditching the default Amazon stuff.

However, by throwing their lot in with Microsoft, Cannonical are basically acting as scabs (an old British term used to describe when some workers continued to go into work when all of their comrades were out on strike, thus weakening the strike) on the rest of the entire Linux eco-system. By allowing Microsoft to gain access to and so provide to their own customers under their own MS brand, all of the Linux world, they get all of the long term benefits.

This will do to the Linux world, potentially, what was done to the Liberal Democrats when they teamed up with the Tories. Short term gains for Cannonical will be overwhelmed by long term losses to the Linux eco-system. In short, this is a very bad thing for the wider Linux world.

If this really is what, on first reading, it appears to be, I am leaving Ubuntu and this time it will for good. I hope I am wrong on this and will be the first to admit it if so. But, the above is my understanding so far.

+1

I agree with a lot you've stated and more. As a friend of mine told me, this is likely the "embrace" phase of Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish

[mikodo]

-snippets - Additionally, as long as Canonical doesn't enter into exclusive "patent" exemption & exclusive use contracts with MS . . . , then this is pnly another agreement allowing easier development of cross functionall apps.

- snippets - Seems to me an effort to keep developers -- and their employers -- who use Windows in environments that also use Linux in some fashion and who need to write Linux code and/or talk to Linux processes from Windows, within the Windows camp. In that sense, it's an acknowledgment that Linux is legitimate. I don' think Canonical's involvement was strictly necessary to get a Linux subsystem running on the Windows kernel. Access to Canonical repos from "Bash on Windows" would, I'm sure.Canonical has said it won't sign any patent deals with MS, which is pretty much the same stance Red Hat is taking in is dealings with the company.

Informed, rational comments like these are needed. I for one, appreciate the information and perspectives.

No doubt, there will be much fear-mongering about this. It is very helpful to have these informed perspectives to balance the other.

Thank you.