Where were you when Microsoft became based

I cant see the future, anon.

>>59057612
what am i supposed to be seeing here?

>>59057688
windows got bash so basically op wanted to use bash on windows to feel 1337

Does windows bash do anything that cygwin doesn't?

>>59057824
it does. WSL have full distro where you can deploy dev environment using package manager. You can deploy web server and it's available from localhost without changing anything and available from outside with one firewall rule.
Also, they have some magic for MSVS. They can now compile linux binaries and use gdb for debbagging using some sort of ssh-channel.

https://channel9.msdn.com/events/Windows/Windows-Developer-Day-Creators-Update/Developer-tools-and-updates#time=17m30s

>>59057612
I think you've confused the "based" meme with the "just" meme

>>59057612
Thats fuckin sweet. I always wanted windows to have bash. I maybe i could actually do some programming on wangblows now

As a Ruby on Rails dev I say that Win10 bash is pretty fucking based.

It still has some issues, but these are being worked on.

It's the Frankenstein's monster they have created. Might be useful though.

>>59057612
Embrace, extend and extinguish.

I'm still going to use msys2.

Does it have all the shit the usually comes with Linux, like gnuplot?

How does it interface with windows programs?

For example, can I include the programs directory in my path and call my programs from the bash shell?

>>59057824
It's literally an unmodified amd64 Ubuntu userland running on NT. There's no need to recompile anything. You can just install and use any Ubuntu package as-is. I'm not sure what the limits are, but this thing can apparently run everything up to and including Firefox just fine.

>>59059779

bash: /mnt/c/Windows/notepad.exe: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error

>>59059779
Your windows file system is automatically mounted in /mnt.
Just cd there and you can access everything you have. However, I wonder which windows programs are you intending to launch from bash.

>>59059779
yeah, you can

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33797258/wsl.png
>>59059848
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/release_notes#build-14951

>>59059899
>doing unpaid QA for Microsoft
I'll stick to my stable builds, thanks.

>>59059848
Can it run Wine?

>>59059934
Apparently yes, but it doesn't just werk. There's some sort of architecture fuckery going on and you're probably going to have to compile it yourself.

>>59059934
>>59059964
Nevermind, it doesn't seem to work even if you do manage to install it. 32-bit executables don't work at all, and Wine64 bitches about not being able to allocate memory.

>>59057612
How does this differ from "Ubuntu on Windows" bash?

>>59060259

That's what it is. There was just some announcement of a new release that (finally) supports calling Windows binaries directly, and I think some improvements to the command shell window.

>NTFS filesystem
yep still shit

Does it at least run GCC native?

How's it interface with hardware? Does it interface with NT flush?

>>59057824
Well, considering it has real, NATIVE fork/exec which doesn't go through CreateProcess, it's just straight up faster in almost every case.

>>59057612
idk, i'll let you know if it ever happens

>>59060529
>unironically thinking NTFS is bad

Explain yourself.

I'll be waiting.

>>59060631
He heard other people say it so it must be right :^)

>>59059848
>It's literally an unmodified amd64 Ubuntu userland
Ehhhh it actually isn't unmodified.... you should try and do some research before you say shit like this. It's missing a lot of packages, and a lot of (userland) tools are straight up broken.

>>59057612
>No GPU passthrough
Pointless

>>59060631
Worse performance than ext4/btfs/zfs/etc, no journaling, worse handling of file names, worse handling of large file blocks compared to ext4 (less fragmentation), absolute joke of garbage collection...
Luckily you didn't have to wait for too long for an explanation.
>>59060668
ntfs is shit, why do you retards try and defend what you know to be bad? How much is Microsoft paying you?

>>59060631
Other than performing ~5-10% slower overall, being structurally inferior (block handling in searches, not supporting symbolic links, having a suboptimal permissions system), being proprietary, being over 15 years old, being faster to fragment than all modern alternatives?

>>59060711
>Worse performance than ext4/btfs/zfs/etc,
[citation needed]

>no journaling,
Flat out false

> worse handling of file names, worse handling of large file blocks compared to ext4 (less fragmentation), absolute joke of garbage collection...
[citation needed]

>>59060711
they know its bad, it cant keep track of large numbers of files well so they made GitVFS

>>59059666
It already had whatever was packaged with git, MSYS I think. (fuck cygwin)

>>59060762
there are difference between file system and virtual file system. not the same thing

>>59057688
better terminal color support I assume

>>59060631
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-40-hdd&num=1

>inb4 loonix with ntfs

It's fully supported in the kernel. Ntfs is a miserable shit and only the desktop friendly NT kernel scheduler can help on it a little bit.

>>59057612
Studio B or maybe at lunch in the commons.


But they're really not all that based...

>>59060679
Isn't it? I get that WSL itself is incomplete and you can't install a lot of packages because it's amd64-only, but it seems to use a vanilla Ubuntu image and the default repositories.