What Can BASH on Windows Do?
-
I have been toying with it but I dont know what it can do.
-
Other than trying to install mySQL or something, I'm not sure what more you would want to do with it?
I wouldn't expect to be able to create Windows users in BASH, the commands aren't there for that, etc.
So what are/were you hoping the BASH command could do outside of acting like WINE and allowing you to install Linux CLI based stuff?
Do you expect, for example, to be able to manipulate partitions? Storage in general?
-
@alex.olynyk said:
I have been toying with it but I dont know what it can do.
Can you actually do anything with it? Like... can you launch applications or anything. Is it a real shell or just a sham of a shell for a fake OS that isn't actually there.
-
@Dashrender said:
Other than trying to install mySQL or something, I'm not sure what more you would want to do with it?
I want it to work... to be a shell for the OS. Why I would want to install MySQL into a fake environment I'm unclear. But using BASH as a replacement for powerShell is epic. But it appears that the product is crippled to the point of useless.
-
From my understanding it is just there for the convenience of developers, allowing them to install linux-based development tools without leaving Windows and/or running numerous resource heavy VMs. It is trying to make Windows a more attractive platform for development and try to pull some of that market share away from Apple.
I can see it as an attractive option for administration of a Linux/Windows environment. I like the idea of having Powershell, RSAT, and BASH all available to access and control my systems/services.
-
@Dashrender said:
I wouldn't expect to be able to create Windows users in BASH, the commands aren't there for that, etc.
What do you mean the commands aren't there? Where did the commands go?
-
@Dashrender said:
Do you expect, for example, to be able to manipulate partitions? Storage in general?
Yes, I want it to do what it is for. Not be modified by way of a virtualization layer that encapsulates it, gives it a fake environment and doesn't let it do anything.
Why do you use PowerShell, what do you expect that to do? I expect BASH to do the same things. That's what BASH on Windows means and what it has always done.
But that's not what this BASH is, apparently. It's not installing on Windows, it's installing into a fake emulated environment (via API) called Ubuntu on Windows. It's not Linux in any way and also isn't Linux.
I've noticed that the same people saying that you can do this also use terms like "You can install BASH on Windows by running it on Ubuntu in VirtualBox." Obviously that's not BASH on Windows, people are just saying anything to make this sound useful or are confused.
-
@RamblingBiped said:
I can see it as an attractive option for administration of a Linux/Windows environment. I like the idea of having Powershell, RSAT, and BASH all available to access and control my systems/services.
It would be epic as a full working shell for Windows.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Other than trying to install mySQL or something, I'm not sure what more you would want to do with it?
I want it to work... to be a shell for the OS. Why I would want to install MySQL into a fake environment I'm unclear. But using BASH as a replacement for powerShell is epic. But it appears that the product is crippled to the point of useless.
I can't agree that it's crippled.
To make BASH work, MS would have to create all of their own versions of those admin utilities that would understand the MS way of doing things.. for example - creating users. I definitely don't expect the BASH (Ubuntu) create user command to understand how to build a Windows user - that's why PowerShell was made, MS build the CLI tools there that know how to poke and prod Windows when it comes to making users.
-
@Dashrender said:
I can't agree that it's crippled.
If you say you are giving me a new shell for windows and then tell me it can't work as a shell ... isn't that crippled? BASH isn't able to do anything it is meant to do. That's very, very crippled.
-
I'm really interested to see where this leads in regards to their aspirations in the area of containerized workloads running on Windows. Are they going to build some kind of emulated kernel space into the WSL and add support for other distributions to facilitate Docker Hosts and container based developemnt?
-
@Dashrender said:
To make BASH work, MS would have to create all of their own versions of those admin utilities that would understand the MS way of doing things.. for example - creating users. I definitely don't expect the BASH (Ubuntu) create user command to understand how to build a Windows user - that's why PowerShell was made, MS build the CLI tools there that know how to poke and prod Windows when it comes to making users.
There is no BASH command for that. I'm unclear what you are thinking here. Are you thinking that Linux commands are INSIDE of BASH? BASH is just the shell, NOT the utilities. All of those utilities already exist. What would they have to create that does not already exist?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Other than trying to install mySQL or something, I'm not sure what more you would want to do with it?
I want it to work... to be a shell for the OS. Why I would want to install MySQL into a fake environment I'm unclear. But using BASH as a replacement for powerShell is epic. But it appears that the product is crippled to the point of useless.
Unlike Macs, Windows is it's own system - Macs are based on FreeBSD, so those commands were already build to work with BSD, so nothing needed to be changed.
If MS dumped their underlying system/APIs, etc and started using the Linux kernel or FreeBSD, then sure - those CLI commands you're used to should and probably would work.
-
@Dashrender said:
Unlike Macs, Windows is it's own system - Macs are based on FreeBSD, so those commands were already build to work with BSD, so nothing needed to be changed.
WHAT COMMANDS???? BASH's commands are things like "for" and "do". I have no idea what commands you are talking about.
-
@Dashrender said:
If MS dumped their underlying system/APIs, etc and started using the Linux kernel or FreeBSD, then sure - those CLI commands you're used to should and probably would work.
No, it would be exactly the same. The use of UNIX here is irrelevant.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I can't agree that it's crippled.
If you say you are giving me a new shell for windows and then tell me it can't work as a shell ... isn't that crippled? BASH isn't able to do anything it is meant to do. That's very, very crippled.
I didn't hear anyone say they are giving a new shell for windows - so that's the first fallacy.
-
@Dashrender said:
I didn't hear anyone say they are giving a new shell for windows - so that's the first fallacy.
That's what I heard everywhere. BASH for Windows. BASH on Windows. That's what those terms imply. BASH is a shell, BASH for Windows would be a shell FOR Windows. But this is not. This is a shell for a fake environment.
-
Ars Technica used that wording, for example.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
To make BASH work, MS would have to create all of their own versions of those admin utilities that would understand the MS way of doing things.. for example - creating users. I definitely don't expect the BASH (Ubuntu) create user command to understand how to build a Windows user - that's why PowerShell was made, MS build the CLI tools there that know how to poke and prod Windows when it comes to making users.
There is no BASH command for that. I'm unclear what you are thinking here. Are you thinking that Linux commands are INSIDE of BASH? BASH is just the shell, NOT the utilities. All of those utilities already exist. What would they have to create that does not already exist?
Oh, so you what? want to run PowerShell commands in Bash? why is this useful?
See this is where I am totally lost.. what is the different between BASH and KRoN and PowerShell? what makes them different?
-
As did TechCrunch.
