Anyone here use the new Bash on Windows feature from Win10? Sounds pretty interesting.

No, because while bash does indeed sound interesting, win10 doesn't...

I left Windows within the last week entirely.

It's not just bash, it is an Ubuntu sub-system to Win 10. I've poked around in it a little bit.

Nope, why would I when I have PowerShell?

In the not too far future, Windows will be a Linux distro.

@iAmNaN Winux

@iAmNaN No thank you. Linux isn't built for desktop enterprise usage I'm afraid.

I think MS plans to change that. Just a hunch.

@drRoss Depends, for developers it sure is. Mostly it's a matter of teaching people to use a new platform which is something many less tech savvy people don't want to do..

Yep! Not a ton, but it's definitely useful.

@Gerrymandered hahaha I don't know why, but that made me laugh.

MS has the resources to create a distro that is as easy as Windows for the masses who like a push-button OS, and they have access to the API that will allow customers heavily invested in Win software to be able to continue to use it. They'll do it for security reasons, if no other reason.

@joehop67 - its bloody good. Its ideal for building little python programs that eventually need to be deployed on a remote.

It cuts out the business of having to push to the server during prototyping to make sure things will work when live,

@iAmNaN I can see it. Especially with MS slowly becoming more accepting of the open source community.

I was curious and tried out the Ubuntu bash on a Win 10 system.
I noticed:
1. I couldn't access my local network mount drives within the bash.
2. File names even are case sensitive in the /mnt/ tree where the Windows drives are (c:\, d:\, e:\). I was able to create the directories /mnt/d/Hello and /mnt/d/hello simultaneously. The Windows explorer listed both directories, called d:\Hello and d:\hello but when I tried to descent into the folders each, the explorer has shown the contents of the same directory each time (can't remember if it was always d:\Hello or d:\hello)
3. git seems ok
4. I couldn't get the ping command convince to work. I couldn't even see the network interfaces and the ip command fails. Don't bother to try iptables.
5. Apparently Windows bash is only a console. Installing a packages which required GTK worked but calling it's main program failed.
6. Processes started in the bash doesn't appear in the Windows task manager (as I remember or I was inept to discover it).

It's been there for more than a year dude

@suda-amir ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've never heard of it before. I was curious if anyone had any experience with it.

@joehop67 u will have a very nice experience with it. Really makes the job easy and get the work done without VM

@iAmNaN didn't they just simply and conveniently pack busybox?

My only use would be to quickly fire up servers etc. - and none of that works. I couldn't even get zsh and oh-my-zsh working, but that's the designer in me speaking

So I deleted it again and will wait 1-2 years until I will give windows a try again

I've used it, and while it is far from perfect and has lots of room for improvement, it still has proven to be practical and worthwhile. I'm glad they added it.

This new feature didn't stop me from running a full Linux distro, though XD

@joehop67 It's fashionable lately

I have, and though it's not perfect, it's pretty great! I can ssh into my University's Linux servers and my raspberry pi, use vim and git for little projects, and so on. Beats out using PuTTY any day in my opinion. A friend and I even got XFCE up and running at one point!

I work alot on linux. And bash on windows works well for integrations. Tried simple stuffs such as running an asterisk server on it. But when doing much more sophisticated projects on it, id rather work on a linux machine due to alot of limitations.

Every now and then but I still prefer to fire up a VM or physical machine

@zshulu no, it's definitely Ubuntu. The utils provided are full utils.

Oh, you mean the huge security hole in an already weak Windows?