What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?

Bob J Jones wrote:
In , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:
[...]
What about running Linux in windows?

Thank you Rene Lamontagne for staying on topic and being technical by
explaining what Windows 10 can do that Win7 and WinXP can't do, which is
the Linux bash shell capability.
https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/use-bash-shell-windows-10

Well, Cygwin only exists for well over two decades, but if you're
happy that yet another flavor of Linux runs (only) on Windows 10, then
go for it. (Cygwin is mostly GNU.)

Oops! Sorry! I accidentily added technical value to the thread and
stayed on topic, but being a troll, I shouldn't do that! Mea culpa, mea
culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Well, Cygwin only exists for well over two decades, but if you're
happy that yet another flavor of Linux runs (only) on Windows 10, then
go for it. (Cygwin is mostly GNU.)

I suppose cygwin is more posix than linux. NT originally had its own
posix subsystem, I briefly dabbled with the Interix bolt-on (and before
that the MKS toolkit for DOS) then MS bought it and it became SFU, until
that was killed too.

I think technically the WSL method is quite clever (even if it has a
stupid backwards name) just enough shim to make the NT kernel look like
a linux kernel to most of ubuntu.

If it had appeared in Server2016 I might have believed MS had some
commitment to it, perhaps they're worried backend services would run
faster under it than natively?

In news wrote:

Well, Cygwin only exists for well over two decades, but if you're
happy that yet another flavor of Linux runs (only) on Windows 10, then
go for it. (Cygwin is mostly GNU.)

Oops! Sorry! I accidentily added technical value to the thread and
stayed on topic, but being a troll, I shouldn't do that! Mea culpa, mea
culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Frank Slootweg,

That's a valid technical point.

Simple fact.
- I'm a simple straightforward person.
- *When people act like adults act - I treat them as an adult.*

The technical on-topic question is whether Windows 10 Subsystem for Linux
(WSL) and Cywin are appreciably different in what power it gives to the
user that they don't already have in Win7 or WinXP.

Hence, Cygwin is a good on-topic point, where almost all of us have used it
in the past, and where I, personally, having used UNIX for a decade prior
to Linux even existing, found Cygwin too much trouble for just a grep,
diff, and comm on Windows.

NOTE: "Sort" works well on all versions of Windows, e.g., in VIM:
:%!sort
Translates roughly to "sort the entire file".

So, the valid on-topic question is what Windows 10 Linux Bash shell
provides that Cygwin doesn't provide, if anything.

Googling to see if anyone has done a comparison between the two...
https://duckduckgo.com/?&q=review+cygwin+compare+windows+10+linux+bash+sh ell

We 1st find "What are the differences between windows bash and cygwin?"
https://askubuntu.com/questions/813848/what-are-the-differences-between-windows-bash-and-cygwin
Which says:
1. Cygwin is unable to run native, unmodified, Linux ELF64 binaries
2. In FCU, WSL can run more than one Linux distro side-by-side
3. WSL supports USB-serial comms (I'm not sure how important that is)
4. WSL supports mounting of USB-storage and network shares (important?)
5. Cygwin is much faster than WSL (the WSL developers agree)
6. Cygwin works on all 32-bit Windows machines (not just 64-bit Win10)

Given that, I'm personally not sure if we should keep or drop WSL.
What do others think about that technical topic?

Do we keep or remove the last item from the list?
1. Windows Store apps
2. Cortana searches
3. DirectX (for gaming)
4. Access 2TB of RAM (instead of 512GB, 192GB, & 128GB previously)
5. HiDPI scale text & GUI to 200% (not just 150% previously)
6. Full-screen console mode ?
7. Timeline (as of April 2018 release)
8. Linux Bash shell (or is Cygwin functionally equivalent?)
9. ?
10. ?

Bob J Jones wrote:

Wolf K, Andy Burns, and Frank Slootweg the troll ... do you have ANY
on-topic technical knowledge whatsoever?

None?
Really?
Nothing?

I'm not willing to expend any effort on your hypothetical "space
filling" questions, you seem to think you are doing the groups some good
by keeping them ticking over with a stream of invented questions, in
fact you just **** people off, it has a chilling effect where people
probably resist answering a question from a new face in case it's only
you with yet another nym.

You claim your nym-shifting is due to constant wiping of your devices
for privacy reasons, yet you now seem to keep several old nyms on the
backburner ready to join the debate. If you stuck to a single nym then
those that you annoy could simply disregard you, and not keep calling
you out!

In , Andy Burns
wrote:

I think technically the WSL method is quite clever (even if it has a
stupid backwards name) just enough shim to make the NT kernel look like
a linux kernel to most of ubuntu.

To test what WSL can do that Cygwin didn't already do, I ran the following
(documented so that others can leverage the effort for themselves)

0. Check the version in Start Cortana version (16200).
1. Navigate to Settings. You can get there by clicking the gear icon on the Start menu.
2. Click Update & security.
3. Select For Developers in the left column.
4. Select Developer Mode under "Use developer features" if it's not already enabled.
This works, but I get the following error, in red:
http://i.cubeupload.com/42V5Ri.jpg
Developer mode is turned on. However, remote deployment and Windows Device Portal couldn't be installed so they're not available. Error code 0x80070422
5. Navigate to the Control Panel (i.e., the old Windows control panel). You can get there by hitting Windows Key + X and selecting Control panel from the pop-up menu that appears.
6. Select Programs and Features. If it's not visible, make sure you select "Large icons" from the "View by" menu.
7. Click "Turn Windows features on or off."
8. Toggle "Windows Subsystem for Linux" to on and click Ok.
9. Click the Restart Now button. (I had to restart twice because the first restart hung to a black screen with a static dash prompt.)
10. Search for Bash in the Cortana / Search box and click its icon.
Up pops a window saying:
http://i.cubeupload.com/Ecsm7s.jpg
Windows Subsystem for Linux has no installed distributions.
Distributions can be installed by visiting the Windows Sto
https://aka.ms/wslstore
Press any key to continue...
11. Type "y" and hit Enter when promoted to install Ubuntu. The system will then take a few minutes to install Ubuntu in the command prompt window.
12. Create a username and password.

I'm kind of stuck at step 11 at the moment, because it "seems" to have
worked but now when I type "bash" at the Cortana prompt, the bash shell
comes up as show above, but then just disappears when I type anything.

So I'm not sure if the disabling of "waueng.dll" has a deleterious effect
or not yet. But when I get the WSL working, I'll test against Cygwin.

Andy Burns wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Well, Cygwin only exists for well over two decades, but if you're
happy that yet another flavor of Linux runs (only) on Windows 10, then
go for it. (Cygwin is mostly GNU.)

I suppose cygwin is more posix than linux.

Cygwin is GNU based in the same way that 'Linux' is GNU based. 'Linux'
in scare quotes, because what we call 'Linux' is actually GNU/Linux,
i.e. the Linux kernel with GNU on top. If you're not aware of these
subtleties, read up on http://www.gnu.org. Quite fun stuff.

So both Cygwin and 'Linux' are *more* than just POSIX.

NT originally had its own
posix subsystem, I briefly dabbled with the Interix bolt-on (and before
that the MKS toolkit for DOS) then MS bought it and it became SFU, until
that was killed too.

I never used NT's POSIX subsystem, but - of course :-) - I used the
MKS Toolkit for DOS. As a UNIX person, I couldn't survive without it,
could I!?

I think technically the WSL method is quite clever (even if it has a
stupid backwards name) just enough shim to make the NT kernel look like
a linux kernel to most of ubuntu.

Yes, it seems much better than Microsoft's previous - half-hearted -
attempts.

Let's see what the Cygwin and 'Linux' user bases think about it.

If it had appeared in Server2016 I might have believed MS had some
commitment to it, perhaps they're worried backend services would run
faster under it than natively?

In , Andy Burns
wrote:

I'm not willing to expend any effort on your hypothetical "space
filling" questions, you seem to think you are doing the groups some good
by keeping them ticking over with a stream of invented questions, in
fact you just **** people off, it has a chilling effect where people
probably resist answering a question from a new face in case it's only
you with yet another nym.

You claim your nym-shifting is due to constant wiping of your devices
for privacy reasons, yet you now seem to keep several old nyms on the
backburner ready to join the debate. If you stuck to a single nym then
those that you annoy could simply disregard you, and not keep calling
you out!

*When you, Andy Burns, act like an adult, you'll be treated like an adult.*

Fact: Show me once, in my entire life, that two nyms posted to the same
thread.

Just once Andy.
Just once in, oh, 100 posts a day, 365 days a year, for 20 years.

Just once Andy.
C'mon, Andy ... just once prove what you say with a fact.

What's that?
You have zero facts to back up what you just alleged?

Really?
Absolutely none?

Fact:

*You prove constantly, Andy Burns, you have the mind of a child.*
You make up accusations that are simply not true.

Even you know them to be untrue.
You know how I know that?

Because you can't find a single instance in thousands of threads.
Not a single one.

You just make up these allegations.

Facts?
You don't need facts.

You make allegations like a child makes them.
*When you, Andy Burns, act like an adult, you'll be treated like an adult.*

That's not even responding to your other completely fabricated claim that
"wiping the device" has anything to do with nyms.

You prove in every post, Andy Burns, that not only are you a child, but
you're an utter moron who just makes things up.

Where on earth have I claimed to change nyms for any reason other than
privacy?

You, Andy Burns, are proven, by your own statements, to not only have the
mind of a child, but, worse, you simply make up everything that you
believe.

Is your entire belief system really made up of wholly imaginary claims?

To wit:
You made up everything you wrote - and yet - you believe it.

That's sad.

HINT: I sure hope that you are not allowed to vote wherever you reside.
(You're that stupid that it scares me how you possess the mind of a child.)

In news wrote:

You, Andy Burns, are proven, by your own statements, to not only have the
mind of a child, but, worse, you simply make up everything that you
believe.

Further proof that you, Andy Burns, have the midn of a child, is that it's
a perfectly valid technical question of:

Q: What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on WinXP or Win7?

You don't have to "like" the question, nor do you have to like the answers.
Yet, in this entire thread, have you seen me stay on topic in all cases
except two special cases.

1. There's a special case of me to Mayayana which was a response to his
off-topic statement where I care to explain a valid fact to Mayayana about
his off-topic conversation, adult to adult.

2. There's the special case of the three trolls, Frank Slootweg the troll,
Andy Burns, and Wolf K, all of whom spent far more time in this thread
trolling than answering any factual questions, where I had to waste not
only my time responding to their silly trolls but worse, everyone else has
to wade through this utter garbage that results when these three trolls do
their trolling (where each "thinks" he's an utter genious!)
a. *Frank Slootweg the troll*
b. Andy Burns
c. Wolf K.

All three prove themselves to be almost completely devoid of any adult
thought processes - hence - all they can do - is troll.

You, Andy Burns, completely fabricate imaginary slights, when the biggest
slight is right there in your face - which is that every time you act like
a child - I tell you that you act like a child - and treat you as the child
that you act like.

*And, when you act like an adult - I treat you as if you were an adult.*

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news wrote:

Well, Cygwin only exists for well over two decades, but if you're
happy that yet another flavor of Linux runs (only) on Windows 10, then
go for it. (Cygwin is mostly GNU.)

[...]

Frank Slootweg,

That's a valid technical point.

[...]

The technical on-topic question is whether Windows 10 Subsystem for Linux
(WSL) and Cywin are appreciably different in what power it gives to the
user that they don't already have in Win7 or WinXP.

Hence, Cygwin is a good on-topic point, where almost all of us have used it
in the past, and where I, personally, having used UNIX for a decade prior
to Linux even existing, found Cygwin too much trouble for just a grep,
diff, and comm on Windows.
[...]
So, the valid on-topic question is what Windows 10 Linux Bash shell
provides that Cygwin doesn't provide, if anything.

Googling to see if anyone has done a comparison between the two...
https://duckduckgo.com/?&q=review+cygwin+compare+windows+10+linux+bash+sh ell

We 1st find "What are the differences between windows bash and cygwin?"
https://askubuntu.com/questions/813848/what-are-the-differences-between-windows-bash-and-cygwin
Which says:
1. Cygwin is unable to run native, unmodified, Linux ELF64 binaries

Personally I do not consider that a problem, because there are
zillions of Cygwin packages for most anything you can think of and you
can even do things like run mail-, web-, NetNews, X-, etc. ad inifitum
servers on Cygwin and hence getting "native, unmodified, Linux ELF64
binaries" only makes things *more* difficult, but yes, I can imagine
that the odd someone might need some 'Linux' software which is not yet -
or will not be - a Cygwin package.

2. In FCU, WSL can run more than one Linux distro side-by-side
3. WSL supports USB-serial comms (I'm not sure how important that is)
4. WSL supports mounting of USB-storage and network shares (important?)
5. Cygwin is much faster than WSL (the WSL developers agree)
6. Cygwin works on all 32-bit Windows machines (not just 64-bit Win10)

Given that, I'm personally not sure if we should keep or drop WSL.
What do others think about that technical topic?

Do we keep or remove the last item from the list?
1. Windows Store apps
2. Cortana searches
3. DirectX (for gaming)
4. Access 2TB of RAM (instead of 512GB, 192GB, & 128GB previously)
5. HiDPI scale text & GUI to 200% (not just 150% previously)
6. Full-screen console mode ?
7. Timeline (as of April 2018 release)
8. Linux Bash shell (or is Cygwin functionally equivalent?)
9. ?
10. ?

Two points:

- I think you can just say "..., in addition to Cygwin [functionality]."

- Now the '...' bit. IMO 'Linux Bash shell' is not doing WSL right and
is a misnomer, because there's no such thing as a 'Linux Bash shell',
it's a 'GNU Bash shell'. Just do a 'man bash' on a Linux system and
check what it says at the left of the last line, probably "GNU Bash".

'Linux Bash shell' is not doing WSL right, because it's *way* more
than just a Bash shell.

Perhaps others who've used WSL can give a better 'name' for it.

Bob J Jones wrote:
In , Andy Burns
wrote:

I'm not willing to expend any effort on your hypothetical "space
filling" questions, you seem to think you are doing the groups some good
by keeping them ticking over with a stream of invented questions, in
fact you just **** people off, it has a chilling effect where people
probably resist answering a question from a new face in case it's only
you with yet another nym.

You claim your nym-shifting is due to constant wiping of your devices
for privacy reasons, yet you now seem to keep several old nyms on the
backburner ready to join the debate. If you stuck to a single nym then
those that you annoy could simply disregard you, and not keep calling
you out!

*When you, Andy Burns, act like an adult, you'll be treated like an adult.*

Fact: Show me once, in my entire life, that two nyms posted to the same
thread.

Now take a deep breath and *read* and try to *understand* what he
*actually* wrote.

Your "Fact:" is *not* disproving what he says. Clue-by-four: It's in
his last sentence.

[Rest of rant deleted.]

Bob J Jones wrote:
[...]
2. There's the special case of the three trolls, Frank Slootweg the troll,
Andy Burns, and Wolf K, all of whom spent far more time in this thread
trolling than answering any factual questions, where I had to waste not
only my time responding to their silly trolls but worse, everyone else has
to wade through this utter garbage that results when these three trolls do
their trolling (where each "thinks" he's an utter genious!)
a. *Frank Slootweg the troll*
b. Andy Burns
c. Wolf K.

All three prove themselves to be almost completely devoid of any adult
thought processes - hence - all they can do - is troll.

boggle!

What the heck is up with you!? First you thank me for my technical
input (on Cygwin versus WSL) and less than an hour *later*, I'm back to
"Frank Slootweg the troll".

Or do you also - intentionally or unintentionally - fsck up your
'Date:' headers?

-
"Bob J Jones" wrote

| Hi Mayayana,
|
| Q: Where are the accidents?
| A: They don't exist.
|
Are you kidding?
AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about
the large number of people killed as a result of texting.
(I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention
away from cellphone talking while driving.)

I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so.
One was caused by a man getting directions from a
friend while driving. The other was probably due to
cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed
into my truck on a quiet street.)

Just yesterday there was this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html

An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off
the road. A series of events ended up with him and
a good samaritan dead.

In my experience, most accidents are caused by
people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with
them daily.

| Warning: OFF TOPIC!

Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup. You don't
get to guide the conversation. The fact that you
started the thread doesn't make it yours. It's a
public discussion. And while this particular
thread has been informative and interesting to me,
you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize
Win10 while pretending to be neutral.

On Thu, 3 May 2018 19:02:18 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Andy Burns
wrote:

I'm not willing to expend any effort on your hypothetical "space
filling" questions, you seem to think you are doing the groups some good
by keeping them ticking over with a stream of invented questions, in
fact you just **** people off, it has a chilling effect where people
probably resist answering a question from a new face in case it's only
you with yet another nym.

You claim your nym-shifting is due to constant wiping of your devices
for privacy reasons, yet you now seem to keep several old nyms on the
backburner ready to join the debate. If you stuck to a single nym then
those that you annoy could simply disregard you, and not keep calling
you out!

*When you, Andy Burns, act like an adult, you'll be treated like an adult.*

Fact: Show me once, in my entire life, that two nyms posted to the same
thread.

The issue that Andy described, and with which I'm in agreement, has
nothing to do with two or more nyms in the same thread, but rather two
or more nyms in the same newsgroup. If you scroll up, you'll see that
that's what he's referring to.

It would help a lot if you could fix that. It's probably a minor tweak
to your scripts.

In news wrote:

Are you kidding?

Changing the subject line since this is completely off topic.

I only speak facts.
The accidents simply do not exist.
You can dance all you want around the elephant in the room.

But the accidents simply do not exist.

AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about
the large number of people killed as a result of texting.

What I said was clear.
You don't seem to have comprehended what I said.

I said, very clearly, that the accident rate in each of the 50 states and
in the combined numbers, which is good data - has not shown ANY effect by
the utterly stupendous huge and sudden skyrocketing rates of cellphone
ownership (and we can assume use while driving).

This is a fact you can dance around all you want.
But that doesn't change that it's a fact.

(I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention
away from cellphone talking while driving.)

They're trying to sell advertising.

I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so.

I've never had an accident in my life, and I've driven about a million
miles. That's simply a "story". Anecdotal evidence is not science.

Anyone who tries to prove a fact by telling a story is not a logical adult.

5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...lly-worthless/

How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tific-results/

Why Anecdotal Evidence is Unreliable
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventu...-is-unreliable

Do Anecdotes Have A Place In Science?
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/09/08...ce-in-science/

Anecdotal vs. Scientific Evidence
http://www.personal.psu.edu/pel2/blo...ic-eviden.html

To wit:
Anecdotes make great stories for telling around a campfire; but anecdotal
evidence is not science.

One was caused by a man getting directions from a
friend while driving. The other was probably due to
cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed
into my truck on a quiet street.)

Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.

Anyone who needs to resort to anecdotal evidence to 'prove' a point, has no
business in a factual discussion where truth is what matters.

Just yesterday there was this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html

An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off
the road. A series of events ended up with him and
a good samaritan dead.

Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.
But while it's a great story, it's just not science.

Science is the fact that nobody on this planet has ever been able to find
ANY first-order relationship whatsoever between skyrocketing cellphone
ownership rates (and presumed use while driving) and actual accident rates.

You can dance around fact all you want; but you can't change that it's a
fact.

In my experience, most accidents are caused by
people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with
them daily.

You're an intuitive thinker, which means, basically, you're not logical,
since it's clear to anyone logical what the facts are.

Nothing wrong with being intuitive - many people are - but it means they're
wrong a LOT of the time simply because they don't check facts.

The facts are clear. Nobody on this planet can find the accidents in the
overall accident rate that people intuit are due to cellphone use while
driving.

You don't think they've looked?

The simple fact is that they don't exist.

I never once said accidents don't exist. They exist like they've always
existed since the statistics were compiled, and the accident rate has been
steadily dropping, year over year over year over year over year over year.

There is ZERO influence of cellphone ownership rates on accident rates.
Zero.

That's a fact you can dance around all you want to.
But it doesn't change the fact.


| Warning: OFF TOPIC!

Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup.

That's a childish thing for you to say.

First off, what I said was it was "off topic".

That's a fact.
You don't seem to like facts.

But the fact you don't like facts doesn't make them not facts.

You don't
get to guide the conversation.

Again. I said it was off topic.
That's a fact.
You seem to be acting like a child because you don't like that fact.
But it doesn't change the fact of what I say is always fact.

The fact that you
started the thread doesn't make it yours.

Again, you're acting like a child acts.
I said it was off topic.
And it is.

This is a Windows newsgroup - and this topic of cellphone related accidents
is completely off topic.

You seem to super easily forget facts.

But the fact you don't comprehend this fact doesn't make it not a fact.

It's a public discussion.

That's the first fact in this thread you got right.
Nobody logical ever disagrees with facts.

That's what is so great about facts.
Everyone agrees on facts who is an adult who can comprehend facts.

And while this particular
thread has been informative and interesting to me,
you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize
Win10 while pretending to be neutral.

You fabricated that claim and it's patently false.
How can I prove it's patently false?
Probably I can't prove it - but that's only because it's a baseless claim.

That you got only a single fact correct in this entire post (which was the
obvious fact that this is a public discussion), and the fact that you got
EVERY other fact wrong in this post, tells me that you are not a logical
thinker which is proven in *all* your statements (save one).

I only speak facts.

In , Wolf K
wrote:

Haha! You just confirmed you're Utter Ragweed.

You're so low on the Dunning-Kruger scale that you actually think you're an
utter genius for figuring out what is obvious and which was never hidden.

The sad thing is that you are utterly incapable of adding a single iota of
technical on-topic value to *any* thread.

Sadder still is that you're probably allowed to vote.