What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux

What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell?
Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

Blake Snyder writes:

What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell?
Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

Allows Windows to run Linux binaries. In the upcoming Fall Creators
Update, you'll be able to install different Linux operating systems
from the Windows Store. Once you install enable WSL and install an OS,
you'll be able to run a shell from which you can install Linux
software with the native package management tools or even build
software from source. It's kind of like what Wine does on Linux, but
for Linux on Windows.

As a side effect, we also get a much enhanced Windows Console.

On 10/16/17 06:16, lifewoutmilk wrote:
Blake Snyder writes:

What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell?
Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

Allows Windows to run Linux binaries. In the upcoming Fall Creators
Update, you'll be able to install different Linux operating systems
from the Windows Store. Once you install enable WSL and install an OS,
you'll be able to run a shell from which you can install Linux
software with the native package management tools or even build
software from source. It's kind of like what Wine does on Linux, but
for Linux on Windows.

As a side effect, we also get a much enhanced Windows Console.


The WSL also makes microsoft windows more vulnerable to viruses/malware,
as the way microsoft has implemented WSL makes it possible to malware to
hide in the WSL. This is a major difference to Wine and Linux, where the
processes run by Wine is visible in the Linux.

As long as WSL ain't enabled by default and the wast majority don't use
it, we may note see that many viruses/maleware taking advantage of WSL,
but maybe they will install WSL for you and then stay hidden from
antivirus programs.

Blake Snyder wrote:
What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell?
Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

It's not quite as "deep" as Cygwin.

It doesn't allow access to the lowest level (/dev/sda).

When you run the Bash shell, you can

cd /mnt/C

and all the Windows drive letters are under the /mnt point.
/mnt/C , /mnt/D , /mnt/E ...

ls

pagefile.sys
hiberfil.sys
...

Bash shell uses "ls" instead of "dir".

You can install packages.

apt install disktype

If you type the name of a utility that is not installed

disktype

the shell will print out a one-liner telling you how to get it.
That's why I don't have to worry about the exact syntax. It'll
tell you. You put sudo in front of the command, to run it
with root privileges.

sudo apt install disktype

You can tell "who" you are, account wise, with

whoami

which Windows also supports now :-)

There is no XWindows (Xorg). You cannot run the Linux Firefox, *unless*
you arrange some sort of X solution. You can use a Windows Xorg,
as a replacement (XMing). So you could run Firefox from the Linux side.
Start XMing first. Set the Display environment variable in your
Bash shell. Then launch Firefox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xming

You could use

xdpyinfo

to find out what "extensions" your Xming supports after you've
started it, and then work out whether Firefox needs something
that isn't present in the X you're using. That's one of the
shortcomings of "bodging" a graphics subsystem onto the Bash
shell, is the Windows freebies, don't have nearly as many
extensions compiled in, as the one native to Linux. That's not
to say it can't be done - if you're paying someone for the
program, chances are it would be more complete (there are
commercial packages - I think I have one sitting around
somewhere here).

And it's bound to have some subsystem limitations. If it
doesn't admit to having /dev/sda, then there are going to
be a few things that won't work. It's supposed to be
a scripting environment, not a full copy of a Linux Distro.

I had a gawk script that was causing my gnuwin32 copy of
Gawk.exe to crash (I've only had that thing crash the one time).
And the first usage I made of the Bash shell, was to run the
Linux Gawk 4, which ran at exactly the same speed as my other
one, but didn't crash :-) Not crashing makes a big difference
to your productivity. It was a happy coincidence that the
one time gawk.exe crashed on me, that Bash shell was sitting there
waiting for a test case.

But other people, like to try "bar bet" test cases on it.
Like getting Linux Firefox running on it, a day or two after the
Win10 Bash beta was released.

Paul

Paul writes:
Blake Snyder wrote:
What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell? Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

It is not just a shell.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/wsl...inux-overview/
describes the technology.

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

It's not quite as "deep" as Cygwin.

It is deeper, in any meaningful interpretation of the term. It is a
reimplementation of the Linux kernel ABI that runs as part of the
Windows kernel (plus some other components); it literally runs the same
executables, byte-for-byte, as a real Linux kernel.

In contrast Cygwin consists entirely of userspace components including a
library exposing a POSIX(ish) API. It cannot run native Linux
executables, you must (at a minimum) recompile your code in order to run
it under Cygwin.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Paul writes:
Blake Snyder wrote:
What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell? Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

It is not just a shell.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/wsl...inux-overview/
describes the technology.

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."
It's not quite as "deep" as Cygwin.

It is deeper, in any meaningful interpretation of the term. It is a
reimplementation of the Linux kernel ABI that runs as part of the
Windows kernel (plus some other components); it literally runs the same
executables, byte-for-byte, as a real Linux kernel.

In contrast Cygwin consists entirely of userspace components including a
library exposing a POSIX(ish) API. It cannot run native Linux
executables, you must (at a minimum) recompile your code in order to run
it under Cygwin.


Cygwin works with /dev/sda identifiers. I can run "disktype",
something that does raw accesses to what you point it to,
and it works.

I tried to access /dev/sda in Win10 Bash shell, and it's
not there. So utilities that want to work with that level
of disk access, won't work with that style of identifier.
And I don't know if the Windows namespace for that works
either (the Linux programs wouldn't know about that anyway).

And someone else mentioned some other Linux subsystem
that wasn't present either. If you're going there
expecting "everything Linux" to work, you have some
testing ahead of you.

*******

I've tried only a few Cygwin packages, and found enough
brokenness to suggest to anyone using it - expect testing.
The individual packages are only as good as the level
of care and attention provided by the porter.

On the Win10 Bash shell, the curation is much better.
It's just the architecture you have to look to (if
a diagram is available), to see and predict what should
work in such an environment. I don't expect to find quality
problems.

One problem I ran into on the very first invocation, was
in my Gawk example. When I use gnuwin32, the gawk.exe
program uses Windows line terminations so I don't
have to worry about it. The Gawk 4.x in Win10 Bash shell,
used Linux line termination, and I ended up adding a
two line Begin() clause to fix it. I guess that falls
in the "architecture" camp, as long as it's consistent
and will always be an issue for everything you do.
If different utilities had a different policy, then
that would be a mess to deal with.

Paul

On 2017-10-16, Blake Snyder wrote:
What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell?
Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

The marketing above makes it sound like the inverse of "wine".

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2017-10-16, Blake Snyder wrote:
What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell?
Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include: apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch. You
can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

The marketing above makes it sound like the inverse of "wine".

I wish the OP hadn't cross-posted the question.

The original announcement ****ed off purists in both
camps, so you couldn't get a lot of constructive
criticism about it.

It was sold as "some way of doing some kind of scripting,
without some mythical class of Windows user having
to use a VM or other means". A kind of "scripting
convenience". But immediately the "bar bet" experiments
started, as you would expect in such a situation.

It affects about the same percentage of the user
population, as "Hololens support".

There's no point wasting a significant amount of time
dialing in any environment, unless you plan on using it.
I've used it a couple times since it was installed.
But I have VMs, native installs, and any permanent attraction
to it, just isn't there. I'm sure somebody likes it.
Maybe it's for an "Azure user" or something. I'm not
really sure of the profile of the mythical user it
was intended for. Microsoft put it there, because they
perceived it was part of their business plan. A kind
of "wheel grease".

I used it. I got what I wanted. It's another tool.

Anyone who wants to work cross-platform, probably has
one of these.

https://s1.postimg.org/81i3me0xy7/Or...ox_Manager.gif

Or one of these (if the networking wasn't so crusty). These
are examples of heterogeneous implementations (PPC on x86).
One of these, I was able to "lift" the entire contents of my
old Mac G4, and put them on the PC.

https://s3.postimg.org/c4rthg1kj/Mac..._on_Win_XP.jpg

That is all.
Paul

Blake Snyder wrote:

What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?

Is it a baby linux inside of Windows?
Just a Bash shell?
Just Cygwin done better?
What?

This is all I know, but I didn't understand what a 'subsystem' is.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-subsystem-for-linux-graduates-in-windows-10-fall-creators-update/

It seems to be just a shell ... but is that what it is?

"With WSL, most Linux shell tools are at your command. These include:
apt,
ssh, find, grep, awk, sed, gpg, wget, tar, vim, emacs, diff, and patch.
You can also run popular open-source programming languages such as python,
perl, ruby, php, and gcc. In addition, WSL and Bash supports server
programs such as the Apache web-server and Oracle's MySQL database
management system. In other words, you get a capable Linux development
environment running on Windows."

This is complete bull****. You can't open a console, start MySQL or Apache
and then close the console or start another server-app from the console. All
linux services are killed as soon you close the console. They don't run *at*
*all* like on linux.
WSL is more like "linux-ultra-light" for dimbulbs. A typical MS creation.
Half done, and that half badly done

Paul wrote:

I wish the OP hadn't cross-posted the question.

The original announcement ****ed off purists in both
camps, so you couldn't get a lot of constructive
criticism about it.

I think the way it's implemented is "moderately clever" but was somewhat
disappointed it couldn't be run, even for testing, under Win2016. I
gather it *is* now available for an insider preview, so maybe it will
make an appearance in Win2016R2?

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/install-on-server

"Blake Snyder" wrote

| What the heck is Windows Subsystem for Linux?
|

I thought Richard Kettlewell's link was more clear than
the ZDNet article. The latter reads like a thinly veiled
MS press release, full of rah-rah enthusiasm. (On the
other hand, it's never a good sign when people use
words like "architected", as the Microsoftie blogger does.
That portends mushy, mind-bending Microsoft jargon
ahead.)

But the blog article seems pretty clear. They are
describing something very similar to WINE -- system
libraries that receive API calls from Linux executables
and convert them to a Windows version.

The next question would then be: Why?
Microsoft have been working for years on finding ways
to capture the Linux server market, or at least cashing in
somehow. They created PowerShell so that Linux server
admins might feel more comfortable if they move to
Windows servers. WSL allows two notable things:
1) Linux software can be tested on Windows. 2) Linux
software, like one's favorite command console, can be
run on Windows. In other words, it's a tool for Linux
geeks who use Windows, or who might, making it
less ominous for them to stick a toe in the water.

What might actually be interesting would be if
WINE ever became as functional as WSL sounds like
it is. Since there's no desirable Linux software there's
no reason for the average person to care about being
able to run it on Windows.

But maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions. Maybe
you've always dreamed of using a browser that's
text-only and runs in a console window, able to display
any webpage written before 1995? In that case,
you're in luck.

Paul writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Paul writes:
It's not quite as "deep" as Cygwin.

It is deeper, in any meaningful interpretation of the term. It is a
reimplementation of the Linux kernel ABI that runs as part of the
Windows kernel (plus some other components); it literally runs the same
executables, byte-for-byte, as a real Linux kernel.

In contrast Cygwin consists entirely of userspace components including a
library exposing a POSIX(ish) API. It cannot run native Linux
executables, you must (at a minimum) recompile your code in order to run
it under Cygwin.

Cygwin works with /dev/sda identifiers. I can run "disktype",
something that does raw accesses to what you point it to,
and it works.

That doesn’t really tell you anything about how the two system are
architected, just that Cygwin has emulated a particular type of device
but WSL has not.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Mayayana wrote:


But maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions. Maybe
you've always dreamed of using a browser that's
text-only and runs in a console window, able to display
any webpage written before 1995? In that case,
you're in luck.

You're probably referring to Lynx. I had to use Lynx
at work, because no other browser was provided. So I
wouldn't chuckle too loudly, as I had to use that
for work functions, to download stuff (back in the day).
When the web was still new.

When I downloaded, compiled and built a copy of NCSA Mosaic,
it was taken away from me (because the license doesn't
allow you to use it at work!). This is why I was using Lynx.
It would be funny if this incident wasn't so sad. Back in those
days, our broadband usage was low enough, the IT department
monitored all downloads. That's how they knew I had Mosaic.
They waited for me to finish building it, before sending
an email nasty-gram and telling me to dispose of it.

*******

In a similar way, this is offered today.

http://links.twibright.com/user_en.html

It offers both text and graphics modes. Links is
an obvious play on Lynx. If it cannot detect graphics
to use, it switches to text.

If you start a copy of XMing before running Win10 Bash
shell, that would be a perfect test environment to
evaluate both modes of "Links" browser. If you don't
set the Display variable, you'll have to pass the
display variable on the command line, to programs
you launch.

A VM is still a better environment...

Paul

"Paul" wrote

| But maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions. Maybe
| you've always dreamed of using a browser that's
| text-only and runs in a console window, able to display
| any webpage written before 1995? In that case,
| you're in luck.
|
| You're probably referring to Lynx.

Not necessarily. I was just referring to Linux
software in general. (Just a joke. I know there's
Firefox for Linux now.)

In alt.os.linux Mayayana wrote:
(Just a joke. I know there's Firefox for Linux now.)

And _has_ existed longer then either Firefox for Windows or
Internet Explorer:
Firefox 0.8 was released in 2004, but it was derived from the Mozilla
suite and THAT again was derived from Netscape, of which the first
public beta versions were released in 1994, even before Windows-95
came out.

From wikipedia, about Netscape:
The browser was easily the most advanced available and was therefore
an instant success, becoming market leader while still in beta.
Netscape's feature-count and market share continued to grow rapidly
after version 1.0 was released.
and a bit further on the same entry:
Version 3.0 of Netscape (the first beta was codenamed "Atlas") was
the first to face any serious competition in the form of Microsoft
Internet Explorer 3.0. Netscape easily held off Microsoft's
challenge and remained the number one browser for the time being.

BTW: Mozilla (the full suite) was derived from the open sources of
what would have become Netscape 5.0 (which was never released).
According to wikipedia again:
Netscape formed the Mozilla Foundation and developed the Mozilla
Application Suite using Gecko. The open-source Mozilla browser was
in turn used as the basis for Netscape 6.

The Mozilla Foundation later split up the full suite into Firefox and
Thunderbird, etc. A continuation OF that full suite is available as
SeaMonkey (since 2006).
And ALL of these have been available for Linux (and in the beginning
for other Unix'es too).