Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Dec 2017 17:34 UTC
Windows

Support for the unix socket has existed both in BSD and Linux for the longest time, but, not on Windows. On Windows, there were some alternatives for local IPC, such as named pipes. But, calling conventions are different between the named pipes and sockets, making writing low-maintenance cross-platform applications difficult. For example, one such place where these two constructs differ (other than the API) is terminating the connection. BSD Socket API provides a bidirectional close semantics using 'shutdown'. There is no direct equivalent of that in named pipes. Such differences make it difficult to port unix socket applications from Linux to Windows and vice versa; up until now!

Build 17063 brings native support for the unix socket to Windows. Starting this build, two Win32 processes can use the AF_UNIX address family over Winsock API (which is very similar to the BSD socket API) to communicate with each other. Currently, the support only exists for the stream (SOCK_STREAM) socket type, which is a connection-oriented protocol for one-to-one communication. Support for the datagram (SOCK_DGRAM) can be considered in future depending on the adoption, feedback and scenarios.

Another step to make Windows friendlier to UNIX/Linux users and developers.

Thread beginning with comment 652260
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Target Audience
by Alfman on Wed 20th Dec 2017 20:59 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

Another step to make Windows friendlier to UNIX/Linux users and developers.



Call me a cynic, but I don't imagine microsoft really cared about unix sockets until it began affecting their internal development. In other words microsoft's developers responsible for porting and maintaining linux tools on windows were experiencing the frustrations of porting *nix software to windows.

I do wonder about the effectiveness of microsoft's strategy of supporting linux userspace on windows to regain the server market lost to linux. I know that I have zero interest in replacing linux with microsoft products. Anyone working for a company showing interest in this?

Edited 2017-12-20 21:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Target Audience
by galvanash on Wed 20th Dec 2017 22:26 in reply to "Target Audience"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I do wonder about the effectiveness of microsoft's strategy of supporting linux userspace on windows to regain the server market lost to linux. I know that I have zero interest in replacing linux with microsoft products. Anyone working for a company showing interest in this?


Personally think it is more about not losing any more ground than necessary... I don't see this kind of stuff helping them regain much lost ground to be honest - Linux will always be better at running Linux Apps.

It does, however, keep you from leaving Windows in some scenarios. I don't think it does much to attract you to adopting Windows though.

My personal theory though is this isn't even really about servers, or even about Linux, its about web developers. The Linux Subsystem on Windows 10 is by far the most meaningful thing they have done in the last 5 years to attract web developers currently on OSX (which is an outstanding web development platform for Linux servers, arguably better than Linux itself) to switch to Windows, because for most OSX users Windows had become basically non-viable for them - everything from Git to Node to Python to Ruby was an uphill struggle on that platform. Now it is at least becoming viable again...

Edited 2017-12-20 22:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Target Audience
by xylifyx on Thu 21st Dec 2017 12:08 in reply to "Target Audience"
xylifyx Member since:
2008-05-03

It they allowed you to write to and delete files that other processes have open, then we are talking.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Target Audience
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Dec 2017 23:23 in reply to "Target Audience"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I know that I have zero interest in replacing linux with microsoft products.


But if your stuff runs in a cloud and suddenly there's a way of easily trying out Azure, then that would lure people in, because it wouldn't feel like you're replacing Linux but just choosing a different cloud provider.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Target Audience
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Dec 2017 13:20 in reply to "RE: Target Audience"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

But if your stuff runs in a cloud and suddenly there's a way of easily trying out Azure, then that would lure people in, because it wouldn't feel like you're replacing Linux but just choosing a different cloud provider.


Yes, but even if it were no compatibility issues and it could 100% replace linux, why would I want to do that? Given microsoft's history as a penchant for user control with a predilection for anti-competitive behavior, I see absolutely no reason for anyone to go that route given the numerous options available in linux hosting.

Admittedly, I am probably biased due to the fact that I sell linux hosting myself, but I really prefer supporting companies that have a larger incentive to work for me than exploit their power over me, as is often the case with huge companies.

Reply Parent Score: 1