[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13697918

[1]: https://www.andreas-jung.com/contents/dont-use-docker-in-git...

        ↑↑↑ 
    Bikeshedding
        ↓↓↓

Now who can come up with the justification for an abbreviation of "whine"?

Edit: seriously, I'm just kidding

They justify their choice saying they had a survey where the most popular option was Bash for Windows. Well, surveys also led to a boat called Boaty McBoatface...

I wonder why they went that route instead of contributing to LTP directly?

While there's probably some edge cases specific to WSL, surely much of their increased unit test coverage would be applicable beyond WSL.

benhills describes the cause:

For some context, I've looked at what causes this slowdown. For some reason stack has mapped an mind-bogglingly huge region of memory (I'm talking dozens of terabytes). When we fork we walk the entire address range to set up the new process's state. We have a design that should vastly speed this up, but we're approaching "pencils down" date for Creators Update.

Now that everything was published they also plan to pre-install the diverse arsenal of hacking tools on every machine, as there is no reason now anymore to hide that stuff - what will make the fight for freedom much easier for everyone involved!

To support your patriotism there will now be a personal statement of all past MS CEOs showing up on startup and the national anthem playing to support your emotions.

Also from time to time a screensaver will show the sentence "Everybody adores you, because you belong to a global hacker elite using the Windows operating system in 2017! Ignore that laughter around you!"

I'm less sure about things that require a GUI, and last time I tried postgres it didn't work. That was a while ago, though, and they might have made progress since. TFA says the postgres tests are passing.

> having serve operations spit out the server into the actual Windows browser?

I'm unsure exactly what you mean. But you can absolutely run web servers in WSL and connect to them from any browser running on Windows.

In my experience, you can connect to any network services running on Windows from Linux (for example, I connect to the Docker for Windows daemon) and vice versa.

Sharing files across the two systems was (maybe still is?) disastrous. I've heard of total Linux system corruption, but I personally had files disappear (they were checked into a remote git repo, so no loss, except for recent changes). It's covered in the docs, but I didn't grok what they were saying and the real gravity of it. Since I was using Windows native Atom for my editor, this was cumbersome.

But, most things work about how you'd expect them to. I was able to install the software I work on (which runs as root, and pokes at everything on the system), and it worked as I expected it to. I didn't even have to tweak it.

I'm still more comfortable and productive in Linux, so I'm happy to have my Linux partition running well again. I also prefer Fedora to Ubuntu, so that's a win for running Linux natively. But, if I liked developing in, say, Visual Studio, and was deploying my software to Linux servers or working on cross-platform desktop apps, having the local Linux would be a big win. Even with the forced separation of filesystems, it's still more transparent than a Vagrant managed VirtualBox, or something.

Also worth noting: Windows is remarkably better as a development environment than the last time I had to develop on a Windows machine (about 10 years ago, one of my jobs included building cross-platform software packages). The quality of tools available is very high. There are good terminals, all of the languages I use have good installers available. Even if Linux weren't there, it's much less painful to develop on Windows than it used to be. (Still painful, and I still had a huge variety of headaches, mostly due to absolutely shitty package management on Windows.)

But it's made my laptop a far more pleasant place to get work done if I need to do so, and generally works far better than I was expecting it would. I no longer feel compelled to run a VM on my laptop to get real work done.

Can you replace Ubuntu? Maybe, if you are OK with 14.04 LTS level support. Certain simple things straight up don't work -- you can't send a ping without an admin level windows shell (sudo wont do it either). You also won't magically get driver support for hardware that works in Linux, but not Windows (if you think this isn't a thing, try plugging in a random USB-to-something adapter without finding obscure, broken, or nonexistant drivers on Windows). If you just need access to some tools that only run on Linux, I've found WSL invaluable, so long as those tools are available on Ubuntu 14.04.

Can you replace Linux in general? Nope - I'm a 90+% Linux user for work and home, and neither Debian, Ubuntu, or its derivatives work for me, with the notable exception of some server and embedded applications. If you want a wide variety of up-to-date software, there is no replacement for something like Arch.

It traps the software interrupt which initiates a system call under Linux and the Windows kernel takes over, emulating that system call.

If MS had actually ported the GNU base system to NT, then you could reasonably call it GNU/NT. They have not done that.

https://mikegerwitz.com/2016/04/GNU-kWindows

(He proofread, and I made suggested changes.)

It seems like your comment was meant to troll, but in the odd chance you're interested, you can follow a lot of these changes and the decisions behind them where Microsoft documented the process on the old Engineering Windows blog, and well as more recently at the main Windows blog itself.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/how-a...