# Ubuntu Is Coming to Windows 10



## Deleted member 48958 (Apr 1, 2016)

> Microsoft and Canonical are, according to a reliable rumor out of ZDNet, working together to bring Ubuntu to Windows 10 desktops.
> 
> In what is surely an early contender for Linux scoop of the year, the venerable  Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols says we’ll all “soon be able to run Ubuntu on Windows 10.”
> 
> ...


 http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/03/microsoft-brings-ubuntu-to-windows-10
http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.html







So it's happened  always knew that Ubuntu is Windows of the *NIX world.
So maybe in in the nearest future Microsoft will be able to spy you even when you use Ubuntu...
So what do you guys think about that?


----------



## Cthulhux (Apr 1, 2016)

Seriously, please grow up.


----------



## kpa (Apr 1, 2016)

You might want to check the date...


----------



## Cthulhux (Apr 1, 2016)

You might want to recognize that the news was first released on March 30.


----------



## SirDice (Apr 1, 2016)

No, this is not an April fools joke. 

http://arstechnica.com/information-...-and-linux-command-line-coming-to-windows-10/


----------



## Deleted member 48958 (Apr 1, 2016)

Cthulhux said:


> Seriously, please grow up.


Thanks, I appreciate your advice.
I'll start from tomorrow, with a fresh ubuntu windows 10 install


----------



## SR_Ind (Apr 16, 2016)

Nothing new. Windows NT and later derivatives always provided SUA (Subsystem for UNIX Applications).
SUA used to be POSIX compliant.
Now the Ubuntu subsystem has a Linuxism smell to it.

The reason seems to be their Azure cloud business (very profitable one), which has been attracting Linux as hosted OS, and they have standardized on Ubuntu.
There is a whole set of MS maneuver that includes open sourcing .NET, porting MS SQL server for Linux that aligns with the latest move.


----------



## zirias@ (Apr 16, 2016)

SR_Ind said:


> Nothing new. Windows NT and later derivatives always provided SUA (Subsystem for UNIX Applications).


Sure something new, SUA was "yet another POSIX" that nobody really used and it required porting software. People either used cygwin instead or ported directly to win32 subsystem. On a side note, the NT architecture with subsystems running as a layer between kernel and userland is kind of interesting.


SR_Ind said:


> Now the Ubuntu subsystem has a Linuxism smell to it.


And that's the point. Not the smell, but the fact it is aimed to be completely binary compatible with Linux. Something FreeBSD has had for years, but for Windows, it's a big deal  Of course they opted for the "most wanted" platform with most binary software available ...



SR_Ind said:


> The reason seems to be their Azure cloud business (very profitable one), which has been attracting Linux as hosted OS, and they have standardized on Ubuntu.
> There is a whole set of MS maneuver that includes open sourcing .NET, porting MS SQL server for Linux that aligns with the latest move.


Yes, that's what I think, too. As I'm developing .NET software in my day job, I like the move to see .NET core on github now and hope this could ultimately lead to better quality.


----------



## SR_Ind (Apr 22, 2016)

Zirias said:


> The fact it is aimed to be completely binary compatible with Linux. Something FreeBSD has had for years, but for Windows, it's a big deal  Of course they opted for the "most wanted" platform with most binary software available ...



There is a crucial difference here. It is the availability of the software development tools.
I guess most of us did this. Coding on Windows inside Visual Studio, FTP the code, run GCC suite from a SSH session. Iterate till complete. 

The move is a MS admission that despite Visual Studio being one of the best software development environments, in lot of installations it is used for products development targeted outside Windows.

The move also indirectly validates two oft quoted complaints i.e. lack of a usable User Interface in *NIX world and lack of affordability of OS X.


----------



## Deleted member 48958 (Apr 23, 2016)

SR_Ind said:


> lack of a usable User Interface in *NIX world  and lack of affordability of OS X


IMHO every *NIX DE is MUCH BETTER than Windows (except KDE ). Also I would not say "usable" about any OS X version.


----------



## hitest (Apr 23, 2016)

SR_Ind said:


> The move also indirectly validates two oft quoted complaints i.e. lack of a usable User Interface in *NIX world and lack of affordability of OS X.



XFCE and KDE are excellent UIs.  I agree.  OS X is ridiculously expensive for the hardware that you get.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 24, 2016)

SR_Ind said:


> I guess most of us did this. Coding on Windows inside Visual Studio


I tried that back in 2003 when I started my web dev company until I was screwed by Microsoft and the updated asp.net. Switched to FreeBSD and have not touched Windows since (at least mostly true). So, no, I don't think most of us do it that way cause I haven't met anyone doing software development not for Windows on a Windows machine.


SR_Ind said:


> lack of a usable User Interface in *NIX world


I haven't a clue what you mean by that. After 12 years, this has never been an issue for me or any company I have ever worked for. The few times I've had to work on a Windows machine for a client, it has always been heartache and frustration. I would never consider developing anything on a Windows machine and have turned down work when asked to do so.


SR_Ind said:


> lack of affordability of OS X


I am heavily involved in the entertainment industry. Nowadays, I deal with a lot of small theatre companies that have no money. Despite that, they all use Macs for in-house work. I have a tough time with statements about the cost of OSX or Macs when these kids and companies all have a Mac.

At one time, Macs were rated #1 by Consumer Reports for reliability and usability and service for more than 10 years in a row. That is something worth paying for.

That said, I have no clue why anyone would use a Mac as a server but I entirely understand why they would use one as a workstation. Also, I want to note that I build my own workstations and servers. I have never owned any Apple gear except an original iPad I was given for Christmas but no longer use it. My son, a Windows-only user for years and now a theatre company owner, bought a Mac, two iPads, and and iPhone on his own with his own money, no prodding from me, and doesn't know how he would exist without it. The cost, he claims, is well worth it cause everything works together and with everything he needs to connect to, both hardware and software.

I hope I didn't go off topic.


----------



## SR_Ind (Apr 24, 2016)

^^
drhowarddrfine,

Anyone developing a UI based software for *NIXes mean testing under a GTK and Qt environments to ensure that it looks and behaves consistently. 

About OS X, your comments are valid for the first world economy alone. In my part of the world a Macbook costs 3 months worth of salary for a newbie developer working in a tier one IT company. It is a status symbol here.


----------



## protocelt (Apr 25, 2016)

SR_Ind said:


> It is a status symbol here.


Ignoring user preferences/opinion, they are a status symbol even in the U.S.


----------



## Atsuri (May 7, 2016)

protocelt said:


> Ignoring user preferences/opinion, they are a status symbol even in the U.S.



And I 'butchered' my legacy Macbook by installing FreeBSD onto it. I feel absolutely no shame .

On topic, though. Would the Canonical-Microsoft partnership impact the whole GNU/Linux ecosystem severely? From the article it seems that Microsoft 10 will simply incorporate GNU/Linux programs and APIs. Will this not put pressure on the whole of GNU/Linux to gear development towards this new 'compatibility layer'?

At this point I am merely curious, as FreeBSD fully satisfies my UNIX needs .


----------



## kpedersen (May 8, 2016)

Atsuri said:


> Will this not put pressure on the whole of GNU/Linux to gear development towards this new 'compatibility layer'?



I don't think that will be a problem. Looking at tech like systemd, most open-source developers don't even try to develop towards their communities, let alone Microsoft's little compatibility layer 

Luckily this is almost a contrast to commercial developers who would target Microsoft's compatibility layer and fsck anyone else because they don't have a big fancy brand name like Microsoft or Canonical 

I think this obsession Linux users have with Wayland is laughable. If they kept with X11, it would mean that this compatibility layer would run graphical applications. As it stands it only really runs command line software. Bunch of burks ditching technology like that in favour of cheap gimmicks.


----------



## Atsuri (May 8, 2016)

vigole said:


> Canonical/Microsoft conspiracy is too far off the mark.
> By the way, Ubuntu itself is too off, even for Off-Topics; just sayin!
> 
> No hack, only straight facts, Hat tip to Chris Welch:
> ...



Well, 'no smoke and mirrors' as the guy on the right said. It seems to work surprising well, too. I myself would not drop a solid UNIX-based operating system in favor of a gimmick just to do proper development. However, maybe this will encourage developers working with Windows exclusively to give GNU/Linux and other Unices a shot. Hope for the best .


----------



## SR_Ind (May 19, 2016)

Microsoft is onto a different game altogether.

Unices have a tough time ahead. Being technologically great is just one factor.
It has to be combined with consumer grade build and finish and usability.
We look for these factors every time we by a technological product.

Those with market presence are not the ones with cutting edge tech or established legacy tech and on commercial side neither they are the costliest or the cheapest.
There is sweet spot that provides a balanced mix of advanced but stable enough technology with an affordability factor.

I believe this is where Unices are dropping off the map. Only yesterday FreeBSD 10.3 failed to install on a brand new desktop (Intel NUC high end config).

I would rather pay for OS license for FreeBSD (something around the cost of Windows 10 home edition) provided it comes with a error free installer and a decent desktop.


----------



## ctaranotte (May 20, 2016)

This is more fun: The PC is dead. Gartner wishes you luck, vendors


----------



## kpedersen (May 20, 2016)

SR_Ind said:


> It has to be combined with consumer grade build and finish and usability.



What I would consider a consumer system is something I would never dream of developing software on. There really is room in the market for two different "types" of system here.

Plus the error you got in the installer is very likely due to hardware compatibility issues with FreeBSD. Try putting in a Mac OS X DVD and seeing if that "consumer grade" operating system fairs any better. If a Mac user couldn't run the Mac OS, they would replace the hardware. I recommend you doing the same (or at least store it somewhere until it is supported)*.

* That said, I understand you want to use your new hardware. So perhaps run FreeBSD in Hyper-V on Windows and treat Microsoft's OS as a "proprietary compatibility layer". I have this same setup on any duff devices that I have to use at work.


----------



## ronaldlees (May 20, 2016)

They'll not be able to ship any GPL3 pieces, so it'll have to be a "bolt-on" provided by a download from Canonical.  I guess that doesn't matter much.  It especially doesn't matter to me, because all of my reasons for using *nix* operating systems are related to their _not being windows_ and _not being apple_  and _not being android_.


----------

