[Wolves] ubuntu on windows

Chris Ellis chris at intrbiz.com
Fri Apr 1 19:18:58 UTC 2016

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Claire Robinson <lug at sitesearcher.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/04/16 14:51, Alan Pope wrote:
>> I've had people "speak up" to me privately about this thread Pete. I
>> would imagine they didn't do so publicly, for fear of being on the
>> receiving end of more of your bile. Just a guess.
>> Love,
>> Al.
> I don't like to see this kind of ad'hominem attack, whatever the
> reasoning behind it. This reflects badly on the group. If there is any
> view which should be expressed in private, it is this.
> It is always good to question things and not just blindly accept them,
> especially when they are things being churned out by corporate
> interests. It is always good to have different opinions and to see them
> freely expressed. It should be encouraged, not suppressed.
> This is not the Wolves Ubuntu User Group, is it? Or Ubuntu fan club?
> Linux & Ubuntu are not yet interchangeable terms, at least outside the
> buntusphere.
> Regards
> Claire

I entirely agree with Claire on this.

Pete has a somewhat direct style, this is life.  Everyone has differing
opinions, and we should be free to express them and to refute them.

TBH, I'm far more interested in the tech.  Alan, I'd love to know how
deep this goes.  Have MS just implemented the minimal syscalls
needed to make simple Posix apps work.  Or have they implemented
the entire Linux ABI.

Also what was Canonical's involvement.  Did you merely provide a bunch
of binaries?  Or how far where you involved in the translation layer?

Additionally, does this exist at the NT Kernel layer? NT was designed
to support multiple syscall interfaces as I understand it.  Or does it do
some translation at the userland layer?


More information about the Wolves mailing list