Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10

Mike Easter wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:

Â*- I have no interest in win10 wsl

Â*- I merely 'tinker' w/ win10 as I also tinker w/ various linux distro/s
Â*- I mostly 'live' in linux, so all its features are always available
to me w/o wsl

Â*- some nice winware runs fine on wine else I use some real win ie xp
or 7, almost never in win10 'tho.

Now that I understand better about WSL incl wsl2 running a MS invention
resembling a linux kernel, I am even more sure that whatever I want to
do linux, I would be *MUCH* better off doing it in a real linux using a
linux kernel as opposed to whatever thing MS has invented resembling a
linux kernel which is able to run some gnu user space linux ware.

What information is this based on?

I can run some windows on a separate machine if I want to do something
which requires win. For purposes of 'crossing over' between winware and
linuxware, I believe that the resources of:

- separate machines running linux here, win there w/ KVM device switch
-or-
- a linux doing some winware w/ wine (which continues to improve) or a VM
- some win doing linux w/ cygwin (I prefer real linux to do linux)

... would satisfy any need I can currently conceive.

My experience w/ win10 isn't all that positive; I prefer the win
environments of win7 (or even XP) for various things which need a win
OS. I don't use any win as my everyday desktop.

To me, the only 'purpose' for win10 is for a person who wants to use a
win for everyday OS and who requires a more modern OS than win7.

For me the only point of Windows 10 is to run high end games (e.g. VR), MS
office and support modern hardware.

But, for a linux user who needs an occasional real winOS, win7 works
perfectly fine, and so does XP for some purposes.

Chris wrote:
Mike Easter

Now that I understand better about WSL incl wsl2 running a MS invention
resembling a linux kernel, I am even more sure that whatever I want to
do linux, I would be *MUCH* better off doing it in a real linux using a
linux kernel as opposed to whatever thing MS has invented resembling a
linux kernel which is able to run some gnu user space linux ware.

What information is this based on?

Which part?

- wsl2 runs a MS invention resembling a linux kernel?
-or-
- my being sure I would be better off doing something linux in a real
linux (w/ a real tried and true and open source linux kernel) as opposed
to a MS-built linux kernel wannabe

For me the only point of Windows 10 is to run high end games (e.g. VR), MS
office and support modern hardware.

I don't know anything about that. I don't run high or low end games at
all, even when I was using an Atari in the 80s; the last time I used a
MS Office was w/ Win9x. I guess the newest hardware I have is a
refurb/ed Win10 laptop whose resources aren't all that great, so I also
run a frugal install (sorta like live, not like a conventional install)
of MX Linux which runs better on the weak resources than Win10 does.

Modern hardware does just fine w/ modern linux.

But, for a linux user who needs an occasional real winOS, win7 works
perfectly fine, and so does XP for some purposes.

For my win needs, I prefer older v/s of Win.


--
Mike Easter

On 18/05/2020 22:02, Mike Easter wrote:
Arlen Holder wrote:
I get that you use a kernel based VM

au contraire, Pierre.Â* I don't use a VM at all.

I mostly use conventional linux, live w/ or w/o persistence or frugal
install, or installed; and I 'flip' to a genuine - NOT VM - Win, such as
XP or Win7, usually not Win10.

I don't use VMs because most of my hardware doesn't have enough
resources to run two OSes, and even that which does I prefer to do it
with the KVM switch.

You are misinterpreting my use of the acronym KVM.Â* My 2 KVMs are a
'two-way' switch using the Keyboard Video (monitor) Mouse between two
desktop machines.Â* Not the KVM of kernel virtual machine.Â* There are
also KVMs which can do more than 2, but I've never had or used such, 3
or 4 port KVMs.Â* Mine are both PS/2 not USB.

So, there are 4 desktops, 2 keyboards, 2 monitors, 2 mice, 1 chair which
can access both keyboards/mice/monitors.


I searched for "Au contraire, Pierre"

I found this:-

https://gofile.io/d/3frsDP

Too much OT x-posting; f/ups to acw

David_B wrote:
I searched for "Au contraire, Pierre"

I found this:-

https://gofile.io/d/3frsDP

"If you attempt to use https://gofile.io, you're greeted with an
"anonymous and free" filesharing service. The reality is, you'll be able
to upload files, but these will be marked with an IP address."

I don't know what that screwy url is for, but here's a 'conventional'
link explaining the 'alternative' form, 'au contraire, mon frere'

Au Contraire, Mon Frère

On the contrary, my brother. This phrase has been popularized in English due to its rhyming nature and used as a rebuttal. Around 28% of English vocabulary is of French origin and many French phrases spoken by English speakers are no longer used in French or are a contrived phrase from a direct translation rather than the actual French meaning - a pseudo-French if it may be.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/...b-050ade25562d

Another rhymer I sometimes use w/ no .fr is

'Ya' know whatta mean, Gene?'
-or-
'You know what I mean, Gene?'


--
Mike Easter

On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:02:39 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

You are misinterpreting my use of the acronym KVM

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that courteous correction, where I had immediately looked up
"KVM" when you first used the term and found this, which is why I "assumed"
it was a Kernel Virtual Machine which is built into Linux:
o What is KVM?
https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/virtualization/what-is-KVM

I didn't delve deeper, as I had simply assumed it was:
"Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) is an open source virtualization
technology built into Linux. Specifically, KVM lets you turn Linux
into a hypervisor that allows a host machine to run multiple,
isolated virtual environments called guests or virtual machines (VMs)."

We've both been on Usenet forever, so I'm especially appreciative that you
remained polite in correcting me, where I accept the correction and openly
admit my misinterpretation.
--
Usenet is best when people post with purposefully helpful intentions.

On 5/18/20 2:05 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
I find it strange that "the problem" is something as trivial as a reboot
o While "the value" is that we _instantly_ have powerful batch commands!

Then you don't understand that Linux is often used to power hardware
that can't go down for trivial reboots.. These services need to be
available with as few interruptions as possible.

Mike Easter wrote:
Chris wrote:
Mike Easter

Now that I understand better about WSL incl wsl2 running a MS invention
resembling a linux kernel, I am even more sure that whatever I want to
do linux, I would be *MUCH* better off doing it in a real linux using a
linux kernel as opposed to whatever thing MS has invented resembling a
linux kernel which is able to run some gnu user space linux ware.

What information is this based on?

Which part?

- wsl2 runs a MS invention resembling a linux kernel?

This bit.

Chris wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Chris wrote:
Mike Easter
Now that I understand better about WSL incl wsl2 running a MS invention
resembling a linux kernel, I am even more sure that whatever I want to
do linux, I would be *MUCH* better off doing it in a real linux using a
linux kernel as opposed to whatever thing MS has invented resembling a
linux kernel which is able to run some gnu user space linux ware.
What information is this based on?

Which part?

- wsl2 runs a MS invention resembling a linux kernel?

This bit.

Does it matter who made it ?

I expect Canonical gets a bit of coin, for
the contributions it's made so far to this project.

*******

WSL2 has limitations. See the word Hypervisor in this
slide ? You need a processor with SLAT/EPT for this to work.
This means the machine I'm typing on, the SSD I have with
the Win10 on it, will never run WSL2. Because there's no EPT
on the Intel processor. Only my Test Machine is new enough
for WSL2.

https://www.thomasmaurer.ch/wp-conte...chitecture.jpg

Note that VirtualBox is getting some changes made to it, so it too can
be shoehorned into a Hypervisor situation. This will give the
impression for a user, that they can run Hyper-V and VirtualBox
at the same time, when VirtualBox will end up being a sort of
Guest itself. Some sort of stacked virtualization at a guess.

Microsoft is aiming for a mess, and the more levels of container
they use, the less debuggable things will become. Process
Monitor will become a joke, in terms of understanding how
the machine got away from you. How much CPU am I really using ?
Who knows. Timmy ? Beuler ?

Linux is headed in the same sorry direction. I wanted to
help a guy debug a snap a few weeks ago... and I couldn't.
I made *zero* progress.

The future looks pretty bleak, if you're someone who
wants to help others with this ****.

Paul

In article ,
Johann Beretta wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-

On 5/18/20 2:05 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
I find it strange that "the problem" is something as trivial as a reboot
o While "the value" is that we _instantly_ have powerful batch commands!

Then you don't understand that Linux is often used to power hardware
that can't go down for trivial reboots.. These services need to be
available with as few interruptions as possible.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Windows WSL be used for any sort of
mission-critical application.

It is obviously just a casual-use sort of thing. Not that there is
anything wrong with that.

--
It's all Al Gore's fault...

(Kenny McCormack) wrote in
:

In article ,
Johann Beretta wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-

On 5/18/20 2:05 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
I find it strange that "the problem" is something as trivial as
a reboot o While "the value" is that we _instantly_ have
powerful batch commands!

Then you don't understand that Linux is often used to power
hardware that can't go down for trivial reboots.. These services
need to be available with as few interruptions as possible.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Windows WSL be used for
any sort of mission-critical application.

It is obviously just a casual-use sort of thing. Not that there
is anything wrong with that.


I would much easier trust a Linux or BSD machine running VMs for
other OSes within it, and would NEVER trust that Windows of any color
could provide that ever.

Maybe one day we'll get someone smart enough to write a BIOS that
allows two OSes to boot up individually (or together)and switch
between them in session or have them both get metered "time slices"
of the system to work with.
Peripheral sharing is an issue though... :-)

Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Chris wrote:
Mike Easter
Now that I understand better about WSL incl wsl2 running a MS invention
resembling a linux kernel, I am even more sure that whatever I want to
do linux, I would be *MUCH* better off doing it in a real linux using a
linux kernel as opposed to whatever thing MS has invented resembling a
linux kernel which is able to run some gnu user space linux ware.
What information is this based on?

Which part?

- wsl2 runs a MS invention resembling a linux kernel?

This bit.

Does it matter who made it ?

I'm not interested in who, but I'm curious in what the "invention" is. Mike
is suggesting that MS have *******ised the Linux kernel for WSL. Your
graphic suggests the kernel is running on a hypervisor. The former sounds
like a huge job for little benefit, whereas latter is simpler.


I expect Canonical gets a bit of coin, for
the contributions it's made so far to this project.

Do you think? MS is a big contributor to the Linux kernel already, why
would they need to pay anyone? SUSE is also available, are they being paid
as well?

wrote:
(Kenny McCormack) wrote in
:

In article ,
Johann Beretta wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-

On 5/18/20 2:05 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
I find it strange that "the problem" is something as trivial as
a reboot o While "the value" is that we _instantly_ have
powerful batch commands!
Then you don't understand that Linux is often used to power
hardware that can't go down for trivial reboots.. These services
need to be available with as few interruptions as possible.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Windows WSL be used for
any sort of mission-critical application.

It is obviously just a casual-use sort of thing. Not that there
is anything wrong with that.


I would much easier trust a Linux or BSD machine running VMs for
other OSes within it, and would NEVER trust that Windows of any color
could provide that ever.

It has Canonical package management, and you're downloading
stuff just like normal, if you add to the environment after install.

I'm sure Canonical in the contract, would have some details
spelled out as to who can mess with files.

The system may not currently have any built-in graphics
capability (because that would require it to "mesh" with
DWM). But in all other respects, should be very similar
to regular Linux. One thing that would be missing, is
/dev/sda, and the "mounted volumes" is as low as the
model goes. You can't "dd" the C: drive for example.
You can do "ls -R /mnt/c" in WSL bash. You would need
to use an account with "admin" to write to the root of
/mnt/c . Using your own Windows home directory is easier.

Paul

Chris wrote:
Paul wrote:

I expect Canonical gets a bit of coin, for
the contributions it's made so far to this project.

Do you think? MS is a big contributor to the Linux kernel already, why
would they need to pay anyone? SUSE is also available, are they being paid
as well?

It's a practical matter.

Microsoft doesn't want to reproduce the 100 person team
inside Canonical, to make WSL. I'm sure they'd fork over
a bit of their wodges of cash, to have a curated setup
delivered. The payment would in effect, be a "maintenance
contract". If a Windows customer spotted a bug, Microsoft
would forward the bug reference to Canonical for remedy.

Microsoft would not want to be forwarding the bug to
Debian or to some upstream, in effect making the 501th distro.
This really is Ubuntu or SUSE or whatever else they've thrown in.
And to grease the rails, you throw in a few million for
headcount to do the support.

Microsoft would play its part, gluing the subsystems into place
to make it work. But when it comes to ensuring that
15000 Debian packages work, paying a few bucks would
be a good deal for that aspect.

Canonical would not have been as "friendly" as its been,
unless some cash was involved. And Shuttleworth needs
deals like this, to show as proof of "open for business"
for his IPO.

Paul

Chris wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Chris wrote:
Mike Easter

Now that I understand better about WSL incl wsl2 running a MS invention
resembling a linux kernel, I am even more sure that whatever I want to
do linux, I would be *MUCH* better off doing it in a real linux using a
linux kernel as opposed to whatever thing MS has invented resembling a
linux kernel which is able to run some gnu user space linux ware.

What information is this based on?

Which part?

- wsl2 runs a MS invention resembling a linux kernel?

This bit.

My understanding is that MS took an (old) 4.19 kernel and bent and
twisted and 'optimized' it in some unknown (to me) number of ways. The
goal was for it to still be able to virtually run gnu user space apps
and I guess some services (but not systemd ones) on certain hardware.

I have no skill at being able to interpret how different that kernel is,
but my understanding is that the kernel source is available for
examination/ ie open. So, the bent 4.19 kernel is ALSO frequently
'patched' and I believe those patches are also available/ open.

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel The source for the Linux
kernel used in Windows Subsystem for Linux 2 (WSL2)

I'm reading that the above MS wsl2 kernel runs in a VM off a virtual
ext4 disk on *some* hardware (Intel VT or AMD-V) to run the gnu
userspace stuff of Ub, Suse, OpenSuse, Debian, Fedora or Kali which have
been modified for such use w/ MS's wsl2 kernel.

--
Mike Easter

On Tue, 19 May 2020 07:43:25 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

My understanding is that MS took an (old) 4.19 kernel

Thank you all for helping to update the tutorial so that
a. We all have an easy-to-use step-by-step tested c&p tutorial
b. We strive to _improve_ that tutorial to add further value

To that goal, here is what my Ubuntu 19.10 inside of WSL says about the kernel:

Win+R wsl
$ lsb_release -d
Description: Ubuntu 19.10

$ uname -r
4.4.0-18362-Microsoft
Which apparently indicates:
o 4 ¡V Kernel version
o 4 ¡V Major revision
o 0 ¡V Minor revision
o 18362 ¡V Bug fix
o Microsoft ¡V Distribution-specific string

$ uname -mrs
Linux 4.4.0-18362-Microsoft x86_64

$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 4.4.0-18362-Microsoft )
(gcc version 5.4.0 (GCC) ) #476-Microsoft Fri Nov 01 16:53:00 PST 2019

$ dmesg | grep Microsoft
[ 0.048501] Microsoft 4.4.0-18362.476-Microsoft 4.4.35

$ apt-cache search linux-generic
linux-generic - Complete Generic Linux kernel and headers
linux-generic-hwe-18.04 - Complete generic Linux kernel and headers (dummy transitional package)
linux-generic-hwe-18.04-edge - Complete generic Linux kernel and headers (dummy transitional package)
linux-generic-hwe-20.04 - Complete Generic Linux kernel and headers
linux-image-unsigned-5.4.0-26-generic - Linux kernel image for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-5.4.0-26-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-extra-5.4.0-26-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-image-unsigned-5.4.0-28-generic - Linux kernel image for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-image-unsigned-5.4.0-29-generic - Linux kernel image for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-image-unsigned-5.4.0-31-generic - Linux kernel image for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-5.4.0-28-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-5.4.0-29-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-5.4.0-31-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-extra-5.4.0-28-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-extra-5.4.0-29-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
linux-modules-extra-5.4.0-31-generic - Linux kernel extra modules for version 5.4.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP

$ wget https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-pp...032031_all.deb
$ wget https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-pp...2031_amd64.deb
$ wget https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-pp...2031_amd64.deb
$ wget https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-pp...2031_amd64.deb

$ ls *.deb
linux-headers-5.0.0-050000-generic_5.0.0-050000.201903032031_amd64.deb
linux-headers-5.0.0-050000_5.0.0-050000.201903032031_all.deb
linux-image-unsigned-5.0.0-050000-generic_5.0.0-050000.201903032031_amd64.deb
linux-modules-5.0.0-050000-generic_5.0.0-050000.201903032031_amd64.deb

$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb
(does a _lot_ of stuff for ten minutes but this is the net, I think)
dpkg: error processing package linux-headers-5.0.0-050000-generic (--install): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
--
I don't know Linux well enough to know if the dependencies can be resolved.