Windows 10: Windows 10 build 14251 has Linux subsystem files, what could it mean?

Read more: Windows 10 build 14251 has Linux subsystem files, but what could it mean? WinBeta

:)

 

Windows Subsystem for Linux not available on build 14316

You need to be running build 14316 or later. Build 1511, is 10586 which does not have support the Linux Subsystem.

 

enabling windows subsystem linux on windows 10

Hi,

You mentioned that the build of your Windows 10 is 16299.15. The latest build of Windows 10 is 16299.125. It is possible that the issue with Windows Subsystem for Linux is occurring because you're still using the earlier build of Windows 10 version 1709.
We recommend updating the build of your Windows 10 to resolve the issue.

Let us know if you can enable Windows Subsystem for Linux after updating the build of your Windows 10.

If you think this was useful, feel free to "mark it as an answer" to help those who are facing the same problem.

 

The linux files are probably part of the android bridge. Android runs on a heavily modified version of linux from what I've heard, so no big surprise really.

 

they should build windows 10 on a unix core like mac is.

 

Microsoft wouldn't want to give the code away. It would have to be based on BSD license or LGPL. They also want to be able to charge for services. I think it could be called Windows 365 Linux enterprise this is where the subscription service may come in. You can charge for stuff under the Lgpl, BSD License, & even in some cases under the GPL.

The problem charging for software with the GPLx, people could fork off of the source code and provide it for free.

 

Why should they? Why should they break every single application, hardware supported drivers, and well established user conventions just to satisfy your misguided opinion?

Making sure it is clear, your idea would break everything. All software/hardware made for Windows would no longer function. Would require emulation just like Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. No benefit in doing that for anyone, Microsoft or consumers.

Apple got away with it way back then because their user base was absolutely tiny. Nor did they have any enterprise, corporate customers like Microsoft.

 

Hi there.

Actually it makes a whole lot of sense -- the main reason people tend to favour Windows over any sort of Linux is usually because they like the GUI and hardware detection and driver installation is much easier in Windows for the majority than hobbling about with various competing Linux distros and their varied set of (optional) GUI's.

If Ms keep the Windows GUI and functionality there's perfect logic in having a more Linux like kernel - I think with larger HDD's and things like NAS boxes being used more and more the limitations of the standard Windows file systems are becoming more and more obvious.

The Storage spaces concept already shows Windows is beginning to think about using a new type of file system -- with cheap affordable 6 and even 10TB drives appearing at consumer level a Windows file system change is probably due anyway.

So long as the GUI is reasonable and easy to use most users don't care "what's under the hood". I'm sure many people use Linux (perhaps unknowingly) every day without any problems -- Android phones for example, or things like Acronis bootable restore program and Gparted which are Linux based.

Makes sense for Ms too -- they might even get Networking fixed properly with a more Linux based kernel. !!!

(Some modern Linux distros have GUI's now very similar to windows -- you could make for example a KDE desktop - a popular Linux GUI used on several different distros - almost identical looking to Windows which a typical windows user wouldn't have any trouble using. So if the Windows GUI remains the same as now with similar functionality - as I said above - most people wouldn't care what's driving it - and if the file system does change Linux has had read / write on NTFS partitions for YEARS now.)

Cheers
jimbo

 

Hi there.

actually there used to be a product called Lindows -- I'm not sure what happened to it but I think some sort of Lawyers got involved and the product was dropped or the name changed.

Lindows | Linux.org

Cheers
jimbo

 

Yes I remember that distro. Aimed at new linux adopters from Windows.

From Wikipedia:

 

Right because we can just swap out the Windows core with Linux and throw the Windows GUI on top of it without any problems. I'm sorry, but that is just...you should not talk about things you have no understanding of. Operating Systems are complex systems, there is nothing simple about them. How they function, how they prioritize hardware and schedule applications while providing a framework for applications to do their task. Swapping any part out or changing it can have major ramifications. Just look at Windows Vista, it broke backwards compatibility in several areas. Tell me, how did everyone react to that? Do I need to give you a hint?

"Under the hood" is just as important to everyone as the GUI, for those that depends on Windows. Changing it now would be suicide for Microsoft.

 

Sorry if it is a dumb question but what Linux (or Android) application would you actually want to run under Windows rather than under Linux (or Android) direct?

 

why should Microsoft use a unix core?? it is much more stable for one and much faster. look how a 2.53 core 2 duo with 2 gb of ram laptop on os x competes with an i5 2.67 and 4gb of ram laptop running windows. the mac is much faster. I have a 2.4 c2d 2 gb mac mini desktop and a 2.67 i5 dell latitude e6410 laptop with windows 10 pro. my mini is just as fast if not faster then my laptop. not that I don't like windows 10 but it would be much better if it was built on a unix core

 

Hi there

I DO understand OS'es -- I worked at Hursley near Winchester in the UK for a while way way back with IBM on the mainframe MVS OS2 (MVS/370 or MVS/SP to distinguish it from the PC version !!) -- still recognized even today as a great example of how an OS should be written.

This OS from late 60's and 70's has everything a modern OS should have -- paging, swapping, task manager, security, TSO (time sharing option), file system, separate I/O channels for overlapping I/O with CPU etc etc.

To compile it we used a special language called PL/S which was a sort of mix between PL/I, IBM assembly language and "English pseudocode".

I'm sure ZILLIONS of satisfied users of that OS hadn't a clue with how it actually worked.

It still had a facility which we really need in modern OS'es too -- there was a difference between an application running in "User" mode and one running in Supervisor mode -- this was done via an SVC (supervisor call) in a program which if authourized would set a special key in hardware (known as the PSW - Program status word) to switch between application and supervisor (or privileged) state.

AFAIK the only people ever to break that system were probably internal "System Progrmmers". I don't think anyone ever succeeded in hacking from the outside --although of course these days with better Internet etc -- who knows.

Still the OS is a model of a classic OS --you can emulate it on even a modest PC using the Hercules emulator and a load of MVS/370 stuff is in public domain !!. Brings back memories seeing that OS running on a Laptop !!!!!! as an application program in Windows --no VM needed !!.

Be very careful in assuming people don't understand how OS'es work. !!!!! - Especially when they have worked on CREATING them !!!!!.

Cheers
jimbo

 

Depends on what you mean by fast... In 3d games using either d3d (not available on Mac) or OpenGL, for instance, Windows smokes OS X's OpenGL implementation , and the Windows OpenGL implementation is about 10 years ahead of OS X's...Apple is way behind in that category. There are all kinds of definitions of "fast"...

Also, Windows' strength is its backwards compatibility--far greater than OS X's, which is also why Windows supports so much more hardware than than OS X. Windows supports more hardware and software than any other OS on Earth. It isn't even close. Comparing OS X to Windows using OS X's apparent functionality is a very limited comparison--once you start looking at OS X in terms of what Windows has/does that OS X cannot do at all, the equation is heavily in Windows' favor. Number 1 of course after the far superior hardware and software compatibility of Windows is that Microsoft doesn't require you to buy a Microsoft-branded computer in order to run OS X... Apple won't let you run OS X unless you buy a *what*?--a Mac. Giant dongle, eh? That's horrible, and a major disadvantage, imo...

You have to understand that if Apple ever released OS X to compete with Windows in the same marketplaces people would be able to run OS X on the platform of their choice--and that is something Apple will not allow, imo--ever. That's why the Mac remains a niche box with an ~eternal 5-6% of the global PC marketplace. It has far too many "gotcha's..."

I've noticed you make a lot of glowing, pro-Mac posts while you somehow always seem to forget the many disadvantages of the Mac, which are Legion--in my humble opinion, of course...