Author Topic: Linux and Windows andLinux (Read 18,290 times)

cmpm · « **on:** March 16, 2008, 12:36 AM »

http://www.andlinux.org/reqs.php

I thought this was very good for these two to get together.
Where's big Mac? Wonder if it could be done?

Now you can run Linux apps in Windows.
Kindof...Sortof...
Better then dual booting though.

Be sure to check the security warning in system requirements.

zridling · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2008, 03:31 AM »

Haven't heard of this, since I didn't see it listed on DistroWatch. Another alternative is to run your GNU/Linux apps from within Windows using a Wubi installation. Pretty cool, and it works. The point is that if you use a certain app, such as emacs, on GNU/Linux, you don't want to have to bother with another editor or a duplicate installation of the Windows version, assuming there is one.

f0dder · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2008, 05:15 AM »

The wubi thing requires reboot to run, though - the purpose of andlinux/colinux is to run linux applications natively under windows, by doing ELF loading and system call translation...

cmpm · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2008, 05:37 AM »

Yeah, I thought it was unique and needed it's own space as being different from dual booting.

I've run various Linux, but just keep coming back to windows.
So to have them both without much hassle would be good.
There are some great Linux programs I like.

Being able to work with both OS's programs seamlessly is quite a plus.
Though I don't know how well it integrates with everything yet.....

Dormouse · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2008, 08:16 AM »

There's this one too - http://www.topologilinux.com/
Uses colinux

urlwolf · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2008, 03:52 AM »

andlinux is a great idea.
I think you could make your entire linux system portable.
Let's see. X server (portable) + linux partition (as .drv file) = mobile heaven.

I haven't tried it, though.

Fodder, you know a lot about low-level stuff.
What's the performance price you pay by having linux installed like this? Is disk access where it suffers most?

Thanks

kartal · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2008, 04:24 AM »

I have ubuntu under virtualbox(xp), it works great. I also have another winxp under virtual box to try my installations.

f0dder · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2008, 12:51 PM »

Quote

Fodder, you know a lot about low-level stuff.
What's the performance price you pay by having linux installed like this? Is disk access where it suffers most?

Shouldn't be too bad, since you run code natively and not emulated. There's a translation layer being used between linux syscalls and windows calls, but that is minimal overhead compared to emulation.

Haven't run any tests of coLinux myself, though.

tinjaw · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2008, 02:16 PM »

Does anybody following this thread have any extended experience with andLinux as I am interested in knowing how stable it is.

urlwolf · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2008, 08:39 PM »

Well, I've been running it for a week or so. Intensive use (actually thinking of abandoning windows forever).

It's as starble as a stand-alone version, I'd say.

The only thing that may act funny is the X server (but that's independent of the andlinux install; it's Xming). Xming is under active development, so bugs are expected. I had some problems with swing applications.

I'm removing ~ 100Gb of music to enlarge the andlinux "partition". Will go full-force into it.

tinjaw, you are a dev; you owe it to yourself to try it. The command line experience under windows is plain painful. if you use it at all, you will be relieved under linux (you know that).

In my tests, this linux install (with whatever system calls translations etc) runs ruby code about twice as fast as the native windows interpreter. No kidding.

urlwolf · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2008, 08:42 PM »

one thing I'd like to know is: am I dooming my linux processes to only one core (have dual core)? I'm sacrificingone gb of memory to windows already. a core... well. it's too much. Fodder? Anyone?

f0dder · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2008, 08:52 PM »

Quote

In my tests, this linux install (with whatever system calls translations etc) runs ruby code about twice as fast as the native windows interpreter. No kidding.

Wtf? The native windows interpreter must suck bigtime, then... compiled with old version of GCC using cygwin translation libraries?

urlwolf · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2008, 09:54 PM »

yep, that's what I thought. No idea why that happens.
Do you know the answer to the 2 core questions?

f0dder · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2008, 10:19 PM »

I'm not sure I understood your question about cores - with coLinux, do you have to dedicate an entire core to it?

urlwolf · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2008, 01:56 AM »

sorry. the question is: if linux is 'just a process' from windows' perspective, then maybe it can live on one core only. That'd mean that you are wasting your second core (no matter how many linux processes are claiming the CPU) if you develop using andlinux on windows.

This is a theory; it may well be the case that you can use the two cores. I'm just not sure.

tinjaw · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2008, 03:46 AM »

Quote from: urlwolf on March 23, 2008, 08:39 PM

Well, I've been running it for a week or so. Intensive use (actually thinking of abandoning windows forever).

It's as starble as a stand-alone version, I'd say.

Thanks for the report.

Quote from: urlwolf on March 23, 2008, 08:39 PM

The only thing that may act funny is the X server (but that's independent of the andlinux install; it's Xming). Xming is under active development, so bugs are expected. I had some problems with swing applications.

Yes. Dependencies are always a pain when they aren't stable.

Quote from: urlwolf on March 23, 2008, 08:39 PM

tinjaw, you are a dev; you owe it to yourself to try it. The command line experience under windows is plain painful. if you use it at all, you will be relieved under linux (you know that).

Oh I've got plenty of non-standard stuff at my fingertips. I run Linux all the time. And on Window boxes I have Cygwin, native Windows ports of GNU software, and lately I run a lot of iPython as my shell.

f0dder · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2008, 01:17 PM »

Quote from: urlwolf on March 24, 2008, 01:56 AM

sorry. the question is: if linux is 'just a process' from windows' perspective, then maybe it can live on one core only. That'd mean that you are wasting your second core (no matter how many linux processes are claiming the CPU) if you develop using andlinux on windows.

Unless coLinux has deliberate limits, you will be able to use your cores just fine... and I would be surprised if coLinux doesn't do translation of the threading APIs

tinjaw · « **Reply #17 on:** March 24, 2008, 01:53 PM »

Quote from: urlwolf on March 24, 2008, 01:56 AM

sorry. the question is: if linux is 'just a process' from windows' perspective, then maybe it can live on one core only.

One process doesn't mean one thread. Threads should load balance just fine across multiple cores.

Quote from: "[url=http://www.colinux.org/

Cooperative Linux[/url]"]"Portability

Unlike User Mode Linux, coLinux always utilizes only one process of the host OS for all its Linux processes, privately managing their scheduling, resources, and faults in a manner which is contained and entirely independent of the way the host OS is implemented. In fact, coLinux only requires a very small set of commonly exported primitives from the host OS kernel in order to work, thus, it can be rather easily ported to run under any operating system, such as Solaris, or even Linux itself."

urlwolf · « **Reply #18 on:** March 24, 2008, 02:02 PM »

Great.
Tinjaw, I copied the exact same paragraph and was going to post it here

One more question is about partitions.
andlinux uses cofs to mount ntfs partitions. it works well.
However, maybe it's even better to create linux partitions and mount them natively. It seems that windows can see an ext2/3 partitions well enough:

http://www.fs-driver.org/faq.html

However, it worries me that maybe ext3 is not that well supported:

Quote

If you mount an Ext3 file system as an Ext2 file system and the file system is not cleanly dismounted, (e.g. due to a system crash), you have to run the e2fsck tool. (Linux does it automatically.) Running e2fsck can take several hours on large volumes. You do not benefit from journaling the Ext3 file system, because you have to run e2fsck.

So my question is: should I create a data partition as NTFS and use cofs, or is it better to make it ext3 and force windows to see it with these drivers?

I'm looking for best performance with many small files. WHich is better, ntfs or ext3?

Other options (JFS, XFS) are not that well supported on win (there are drivers but not reliable)

Thanks

f0dder · « **Reply #19 on:** March 24, 2008, 02:09 PM »

Hm, only uses a single windows process to contain all the linux apps? Dunno if that sounds like such a great idea. But as long as it at least uses multiple windows threads inside that single process...

tinjaw · « **Reply #20 on:** March 24, 2008, 02:32 PM »

These days using NTFS in Linux and ext2 in Windows is easily achieved with the right drivers. I usually default to NTFS as I suspect Linux applications will be more forgiving of NTFS than the other way around.

urlwolf · « **Reply #21 on:** March 24, 2008, 02:54 PM »

Actually, these are the .exe in the andlinux dir:

Quote

colinux-bridged-net-daemon.exe
colinux-console-fltk.exe
colinux-console-nt.exe
colinux-daemon.exe
colinux-debug-daemon.exe
colinux-net-daemon.exe
colinux-serial-daemon.exe
colinux-slirp-net-daemon.exe

In the task manager, you mostly see cpu activity from:
colinux-net-daemon.exe
colinux-daemon.exe

And the X server of course.

Is that bad news? are all processes in linux running under the colinux-daemon.exe process in windows?

tinjaw · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2008, 02:56 PM »

Sysinternals/Microsoft Process Explorer should help you determine that. You can see parent/child relationships as well as dig down to the thread level (and beyond).

urlwolf · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2008, 06:23 PM »

Actually, I think windows just has no idea of what linux is doing.
Here's an example.

Top shows CPU 99%, but process explorer doesn't even show 8% for total cpu usage, and the anlinux demon is mostly iddle.
[attach]