Change my mind: Windows Subsystem for Linux should be Linux Subsystem for Windows
Posted by union4breakfast@reddit | linux | View on Reddit | 163 comments
I'm serious. Isn't WSL essentially a Linux environment running on top of Windows, rather than a Windows environment running on Linux?
If that’s the case, it feels like the naming is a bit backward. WSL stands for Windows Subsystem for Linux, which makes sense in a very literal sense: it’s a subsystem provided by Windows to support Linux. But when you think about it, the direction of the virtualization is key. Typically, when we talk about virtual machines or subsystems, we name them in the format of what is running inside what. Here, Linux is the thing running on top of Windows, not the other way around. So wouldn’t it be more logical to call it LSW, Linux Subsystem for Windows?
I'm posting here for the first time so sorry if this breaks the rules, I don't whether we're allowed to discuss Linux VMs
daffalaxia@reddit
I guess it's a matter of opinion. One way to look at it is that it's the subsystem, provided by windows, to host Linux.
And no, I don't think a PR to rename is a good idea. Names are hard. Changing them is difficult and prone to error. It is what it is. If I were a wsl dev, I'd say as much and summarily close your PR. It's simply not worth the effort for a pendantic semanticism.
ErikderFrea@reddit
THANK YOU! I’m not alone.
When I got recommended WSL, I put it off immediately for months because of thought the person recommending me this, had understood my problem the wrong way around.
MoobyTheGoldenSock@reddit
Windows subsystem is the translation layer. You wouldn’t expect it to be called “translation layer for Windows,” it’s the translation layer for linux. So it’s the Windows subsystem for linux.
funbike@reddit
It's not a translation layer anymore.
WSL1 was a translation layer like a reverse WINE. WSL2 is a Linux VM.
Narrow_Victory1262@reddit
looking at what you cannot do with WSL, I hardly would call it a vm though. Pretty limited, that stuff.
funbike@reddit
Well, it's a fact. It is a VM.
It's a Hyper-V VM. Hyper-V is powerful.
You seem uninformed, like you still think WSL 2 works like WSL 1. Everything you can do in a VM you can do with WSL 2. The default config is a bit limited, but because it's based on Hyper-V you can configure it however you like. Most people don't, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
Please tell me ONE thing you cannot do with WSL that you can do with another VM. You can't because there is none.
Narrow_Victory1262@reddit
ok so let's install an iso, config network. and then a second one, and now let's talk to eachother. ssh from a) to b).
I can come up with a lot more and in the past already posted that list. you will be surprised how much it differts from a vm.
Nothing you say will change that, to quote your line. It may be in a vm but it definitely is not something you remotely can compare with a full fledged vm.
funbike@reddit
I said "Everything you can do in a VM you can do with WSL 2", the key word being "in". I clearly wasn't talking about external VM management.
However, you can configure the WSL 2 VM to directly communicate with other local Hyper-V VMs, as in your example.
Narrow_Victory1262@reddit
one of the first things linux users should do is:
a) install an OS
b) config network
c) update the OS
d) make a few linux systems
e) we can go on for some time here.
so maybe that just makes a little bit more sense.
WSL2 is ood for some ssh stuff and other basic things but in reality to at least learn a few core tasks, you cannot use WSL2.
Like said -- if I do my best, I can update the list for you but in reality, what people mean with a VM is something different from what WSL2 does. IMHO. Bit what do I know. I don't grow a beard but I have been in IT long enough. (60+ as we speak; I have a multi-colored team to lead in linux/aix)
MoobyTheGoldenSock@reddit
Yep, WSL2 isn’t really WSL anymore. Xfce no longer uses XForms but the name still stuck as well.
BranchLatter4294@reddit
I agree. The older version with the original NT was called Unix Subsystem for Windows. I don't know why they reversed it. It's confusing.
TheSodesa@reddit
Marketing. Marketing is why they reversed it. Gotta mention the main product name first.
bitzap_sr@reddit
Had to scroll too much to find this comment.
fanfarius@reddit
A Linux subsystem (for running Windows)?
Connect_Channel_7459@reddit
Run it and open taskmgr, theres a process running linux as subsystem inside Win
Vie4eiteiduic1vae3ah@reddit
I think WSL is named that way because of legal concerns. Something about not putting your competitor name in "front" of the name of the product. I'm not a lawyer though.
NoblySP@reddit
Yep, this is the actual reason. Here is a comment by someone who worked on WSL (former PM).
Vie4eiteiduic1vae3ah@reddit
Thanks for the link, it's nice to see a Microsoft person making fun at themselves and the strange choices they often make with product naming.
swiebertjee@reddit
Yup remember reading this too but it's hard to find an official source.
i_live_in_sweden@reddit
Microsoft has a crappy track record when it comes to logical names. Everything in O365 named Copilot, and Teams New or New Teams and the same with Outlook Classic, Windows Outlook, New Outlook. Renaming Azure AD to Entra ID. Xbox One isn't the first one. Windows numbering, 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10 (was supposed to be the last one), 11. It's pure insanity from start to finish.
AirTuna@reddit
The funniest one is how their server versions actually make sense (based upon year, which is something Samsung and Apple have started doing with some of their respective products) while their consumer product naming is confusing as heck.
natermer@reddit
Not originally.
NT Kernel was originally a microkernel design. Microsoft abandoned it after the first NT releases when they realized that micro kernels won't ever be competitive with Unix kernels.
However it did retain some of the microkernel-type message features.
One of the effects of this is that NT kernel is capable of adopting "multiple personalities". It can support NT userland, Win64 userland, and POSIX userland.
And because of this Microsoft Windows was even, for a short time, a certified Unix operating system under the (older) POSIX standard. They did this because POSIX compatibility was a requirement for many government contracts.
This got to the point were Microsoft actually incorporated some OpenBSD code into Windows to provide these types of features.
There was a few variations of this feature, but it ended up becoming SFU, as in "Windows Services for Unix".
For WSL1 they adopted a Linux userland personality for the Windows NT kernel. This way you could run Linux software directly on the NT kernel.
So it really was "Windows Services for Linux", as in it was a Windows Service for running Linux software.
However this has a lot of limitations. Even with native linux software support it was difficult to support everything and didn't have the features necessary for containers.
MIcrosoft adopted the approach that Linux uses for Linux KVM. KVM turns Linux into a "Type 1 bare metal hypervisor". Microsoft did the same thing for NT kernel with their Hyper-V hypervisor.
So with WSL2 they took the approach of just running a Linux kernel in "Virtual Machine Platform" portion of Hyper-V.
That way Windows now has the ability to support containers and has better compatibility with Linux distributions.
So, yes, it is actually a Windows Service for providing support for Linux applications. They just happen to use a Linux kernel as part of that service.
So it is still a valid name.
rien333@reddit
Source? I know Microsoft sold a Unix for a pretty long time, but I never knew they wanted to make Windows/NT more unixy? In fact, I thought they wanted to keep these products somewhat seperate?
natermer@reddit
Unix certification just means that it adheres to POSIX standard. And all of this was a long time ago and the POSIX compliance they had wasn't very good.
They did it because some largely customers (I am guessing mostly some parts of USA Federal Government) required POSIX certification to get contracts.
Here is another shocker:
Microsoft first operating system wasn't MS-DOS. It was Unix.
They worked with Santa Cruz Operation, Inc (which was a very cool little company at the time, much different then the later SCO group. All the original founders left the company long before the Linux lawsuits happened) to port a version of AT&T Unix over to the early 16Bit PC platform.
This was called "Xenix" and it was a popular OS for small and medium businesses. Intel sold systems with Xenix pre-installed and they often got used for Point of Sale (POS) systems for companies like Pizzahut and Blockbuster in the 1980s.
Unix was Microsoft's primary development platform up until they released Windows for Workgroups around the early 1990s. Early MS-DOS and Windows developers had to learn to use Vi to use their email.
https://archive.org/details/Unix_World_Vol02_10.pdf/page/n21/mode/2up
AirTuna@reddit
If one wanted to "split hairs", one could argue that neither was their first OS: both were licensed from another vendor (I do not believe that relicensing something makes it "yours").
rien333@reddit
nvm found a source here:
https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/27330/in-what-ways-was-the-windows-nt-posix-implementation-unsuited-to-real-use
weird stuff.
stalecu@reddit
"Apple fanboys" (people that know shit about NT) "nonsensically" (demonstrably) calling NT what it actually is, anyone that has read Windows Internals (not Linux users, that's for sure, because they know jack shit, like you just showed) or has done any bit of research can tell you it is a hybrid kernel.
Windows NT was inspired by the Mach microkernel, aiming to structure the operating system as a collection of modules that communicate through well-defined interfaces. The kernel itself is small and handles only core functions like hardware interrupts, thread scheduling, and synchronization. Other services, such as file systems, networking, and graphics, can run either in kernel mode or as separate processes in user mode, depending on design and performance needs.
NT supports multiple "personalities," with the main one being the Windows API, which most applications use. This API is implemented by the Client/Server Runtime Subsystem (csrss.exe). In early versions of NT, csrss.exe also managed the GUI, including the window manager and graphics drivers. Starting with NT 4.0, the GUI components were moved into kernel mode to improve performance.
Applications don't call the kernel directly. Instead, they use Windows API functions provided by user-mode DLLs. These DLLs call into ntdll.dll, which can either trap into kernel mode to invoke kernel routines or communicate with subsystem servers in user mode using Local Procedure Calls (LPCs). These subsystem servers then use the NT API to interact with the kernel and other processes.
Windows NT is therefore neither purely monolithic nor a pure microkernel. It is not monolithic because many parts of the OS run in user mode rather than kernel mode, reducing risk from bugs. It is not a pure microkernel because significant services, like the GUI after NT 4.0, are implemented in kernel mode for performance, rather than entirely in separate user processes.
ptoki@reddit
Back in pre win7 times I remember the media coverage of new windows architecture where they sort of start from scratch and just keep the compatibility through some sort of virtualization or emulation layer.
The idea was to abandon crufty code and designs for new better, modern approaches.
I thought that MS buying the company (I dont remember what it was) who developed a precursor to hyperv is that step. Basically, all dos/win95/xp code would run in a tiny VM and just show up in a window and maybe communicate with the rest through some clever wrapper solutions but all new code would be nice shiny design.
Instead they embraced the faults of linux (fragmentation of solutions, multitude of stacks duplicating the same functionality (qt/gnome on linux and .net/winapi on windows for example) etc... )
I thought that if palm could do that (later apple did that too), transmeta could do similar class of magic in their cpus then MS could do that too. Nope :)
nhaines@reddit
That would be Virtual PC...
fellipec@reddit
In the NT4 era there were Win32, POSIX, and OS/2 subsystems.
To keep with the same idea, it should be called just Linux subsystem, but I digress.
dbath@reddit
WSL1 fit this model, and the naming made sense. WSL2 works completely differently, but the UX is essentially the same, so it made sense to name WSL as a version update.
A case of every step making sense, and the final outcome being a bit perplexing.
throwaway234f32423df@reddit
WSL1 is just so much better than WSL2 it's not even funny
if they ever deprecate WSL1, I don't know exactly what I'll do but let's just say consequences will never be the same
fellipec@reddit
Yeah. To be honest, I think WSL1 is more elegant because of that model, but also is just lipstick on a pig. Can't agree more with you, the outcome is weird at least.
Little_Bookkeeper381@reddit
WSL1 was built to run android apps on windows phone. but then they cancelled windows phone.
and then the effort of maintaining syscall parity wasn't worth it so they switched to the current hyper-v model
Comfortable_Swim_380@reddit
I'm just looking for the bathroom. I'll see myself out.
rayjaymor85@reddit
Microsoft have the worst naming conventions.
Eubank31@reddit
I've always thought this and was very confused when I first heard WSL
interrex41@reddit
See I like the idea of WSL but I perfer a regular VM I dont have to configure a bunch of stuff to make basic things work in a VM and I have had WSL break for no reason before.
I dont remember what it was I was doing but WSL did not like it and I ended up using a VM anyway.
J-Cake@reddit
Perhaps the best way to look that the name is
Windows' subsystem for Linux
Wherein it's not a windows subsystem, but a subsystem within windows.
ThomasterXXL@reddit
It is a Windows subsystem for running Linux.
I also find the name irritating and unintuitive, but the language is not well-defined enough to fully exclude either interpretation.
Also, I think WSL (the first) should be named lime, where m is two 'n' overlapping.
sernamenotdefined@reddit
It is actually a piece of windows software (so a windows subsystem) that provides services that allow you to integrate a hyper-v vm running linux into your windows environment.
WSL is not the Linux system, You run Linux on top of it.
The current name is completely correct and the name OP suggest is actually inaccurate.
ThomasterXXL@reddit
Eh, not really. As I said, the language is not well-defined enough to exclude either from being interpreted however you want to understand it.
Maybe we should rename it so SLW or SWL instead?
atomic1fire@reddit
I think if they were going to rename it, it shouldn't be overly complicated.
Like Crostini or Termina on Android.
Probably not something silly like Birdfeeder.
nhermosilla14@reddit
Except it was like that at launch time. There used to be no VM involved...
hpxvzhjfgb@reddit
even if it was like that, the word "for" doesn't fit. it isn't "for" Linux, it just "is" Linux.
privatetudor@reddit
Exactly it's either Window's Linux Subsystem or Linux Subsystem for Windows.
Borkz@reddit
I just think of it as "Subsystem for Linux" with the Windows brand stuck in front a la Windows Terminal, Windows Defender, etc...
union4breakfast@reddit (OP)
But the official naming doesn't have the apostrophe, but yes, helpful way to look at it
R3D3-1@reddit
Not a native speaker, but doesn't it also work without?
"Windows subsystem" by itself I would read as "a subsystem of Windows". Then WSL is "A Windows subsystem for [running] Linux".
That said, I'd also find "Linux subsystem for Windows" more clear. This I would read as "A subsystem for running Linux, for use on Windows".
WooltiUwU@reddit
You're correct that it works without the apostrophe, but it's more ambiguous that way. It could mean that it's a subsystem on Windows meant to run Linux, or that it's the subsystem running Windows, for Linux. Adding the apostrophe is a small change that removes the ambiguity by assigning ownership
Pyroglyph@reddit
But if it was LSW then I couldn't call it a fun name like "Wizzle" :(
thequux@reddit
Wizzle is excellent (and how I pronounce it), but may I present for your consideration "lizzoo"
De_Clan_C@reddit
Yeah, I've always thought of it as a subsystem within windows for Linux to run.
Schlonzig@reddit
In my head it was LSW until some marketing people heard about it.
yukeake@reddit
Quite possible. I can totally see some marketer going "Oh no, we can't start a name with Linux! It must be Windows! Linux can only come at the end!"
I've worked with enough marketing folks over the years - this is how they can tend to think. It seems rather petty and incorrect to me, but I'm on the dev/ops side of things, so my opinion isn't worth anything ;P
Amazing_Meatballs@reddit
WSL is backwards of LSW so of course that’s what Microsoft chose.
El_McNuggeto@reddit
Bingo
Mister_Magister@reddit
It should be "linux vm"
IntelligentSpite6364@reddit
It’s not a vm
SleeplessSloth79@reddit
AFAIK WSL 2 is literally a VM though
sernamenotdefined@reddit
Correct, bot AFAIK you can't even use WSL1 anymore, so it's useless to discuss it.
BinaryRockStar@reddit
You can use WSL1 just fine, where did you get the idea it was removed?
sernamenotdefined@reddit
I setupUbuntu on WSL on my win 11 machine and I did not see an option for WSL 1 only 2.
Do you need to install it seperately?
BinaryRockStar@reddit
So because you didn't see an option to use WSL1 it doesn't exist and you can confidently say it's useless to discuss it?
Mister_Magister@reddit
it literally is
IntelligentSpite6364@reddit
Looked it up and so it is, apologies. I always thought it was more like a docker image + compatibility layer type of implementation because it doesn’t seem to virtualize much of the system, instead seeming to directly host Linux on windows
dack42@reddit
The original version was not a full VM, but WSL2 is.
zorski@reddit
It is though
funbike@reddit
Incorrect. WSL2 is a VM (Hyper-V). However, WSL1 was like the reverse of WINE.
AdShoddy7599@reddit
It’s kinda accurate. When you enable WSL, you’re no longer running windows, you’re running a hypervisor that runs windows, and now Linux as well. They’re side by side now. So it’s like windows is turning into a subsystem for the purpose of running linux
supenguin@reddit
Yes, but Microsoft is notoriously bad at naming things. Look at the different versions of Xbox and how many things they slapped the “Copilot” label on.
Linux isn’t immune either. Half of open source is acronyms and weird names.
BoringWozniak@reddit
Microsoft Virtual Linux Manager 25 Business Edition
Zaurzu@reddit
I was just thinking this recently, I don’t know why the didn’t go with LSW
vsuontam@reddit
100%. The current name is BS and marketing.
xmBQWugdxjaA@reddit
Yeah, but this is the company that named the Xbox One X and Xbox Series X.
SlightComplaint@reddit
I am interested in this software (WSL) But because I don't use Windows at home, and work forces me to use Windows, but denies me to install WSL, I have never used it.
j0hnp0s@reddit
It sounds reverse, because Microsoft in their infinite bitterness, tried to make Linux feel like a service or functionality instead of an Operating system.
If you read it like Windows Subsystem for the Linux functionality, it kinda sounds like a Microsoft product
Of course for anyone that is not Microsoft, Linux is an operating System, and would read it like
"Windows Subsystem for the Linux Operating System"
meaning a subsystem to run windows stuff on Linux.
toonies55@reddit
X box series x. MS can't name things properly since they started.
trashcatttt@reddit
its probably some marketing crappy idea don't bother your self.
pppjurac@reddit
"Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare"
twistedfires@reddit
I prefer the way I call it: "the only way I don't get crazy using my work's laptop"
union4breakfast@reddit (OP)
The greedy manufacturers are now baking in Windows such that now you can't even get rid of it
I recently bought a laptop from a shitty manufacturer who made it impossible to switch to Linux. I returned it
pppjurac@reddit
No knowing how to do it is not reason to blame on manufacturer.
iamakorndawg@reddit
Name and shame that manufacturer! What was the problem?
union4breakfast@reddit (OP)
In laptops, it's HP
In phones, it's everyone except Google (ironically), OnePlus and Fairphone
DHermit@reddit
Have Motorola and Sony changed? Their phones were easy to open bootloaders on in the past as well.
Kiwithegaylord@reddit
Sony phones are great for sailfishOS
power_of_booze@reddit
There are a few left.Here is a list of them
dack42@reddit
Wait what? How are they doing that? Was this Intel 64 architecture? Was it a secure boot thing? Microsoft's own specifications for secure boot allow for other OSs (included ability to disable secure boot and use custom keys).
vemundveien@reddit
Often you can still unlock these to install custom OS, but it can be a pain in the ass to do (and require you to physically open it to remove a screw that keeps the boot sector in read only).
Damglador@reddit
So "TOWIDGCUMWL"
DazzlingAd4254@reddit
Not so sure about that particular name... it might face the same issues as Penistone, South Yorkshire, or the unfortunate Sussex...
furrykef@reddit
I give up. What's wrong with South Yorkshire?
DazzlingAd4254@reddit
Nothing. Ambiguity caused by poor punctuation.
ionburger@reddit
heheh cum funny
FarmboyJustice@reddit
No, do not suggest renaming it. It will end up being called Microsoft Copilot for Windows Linux Pro Plus
SoulEviscerator@reddit
Leave it to Microsoft to name shit no one understands.
MonitorSpecialist138@reddit
It's easy to understand actually
DistributionRight261@reddit
It's a subsisten innecesarios ndiws made by windows to run Linux. Windows subsystem for Linux..... WLS.
Is like winapps in Linux.
ptoki@reddit
I find the wsl to be really bad idea on multiple levels. Im glad it is such a poor thing and has very limited production implementation.
You want linux? Spin up a VM on that windows, glue things with httpd.
You want windows on linux, spin up a VM.
The wsl is half useful and you end up fighting with its limitations instead of just creating what you like.
I like technologies where only like 10% of what you do is solving puzzles and 90% is me being creative or productive. WSL is not like that.
paul1126_korea@reddit
I agree. I need LSW.(linux subsystem for windows)
fotoliptofono@reddit
WSL-alike sounded for me as Wine
Nixinova@reddit
Think like this:
The service is a Windows Subsystem.
What is this Subsystem for?
Using Linux.
So it is a Windows Subsystem, for Linux.
Darknety@reddit
Yeah hated that name since release for precisely this reason
TheWorldIsNotOkay@reddit
I think the problem isn't the direction of the virtualization, but rather simply the use of "for". It's a subsystem of Windows, so that part is fine. But then you add "for Linux", and it falls apart. Because it's not for Linux. It's for Windows, in order to run Linux and Linux applications. So "Windows Subsystem for Virtualizing Linux" or anything that's "for Linux" would make sense, but not just "for Linux".
Pauloedsonjk@reddit
from the same creators of:
Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox one ...
murlakatamenka@reddit
You're so late to the party... :/
"Raising a PR" part is very naive. They say "sweet summer child" in such cases.
Despite the salty comment, the naming is as confusing as I first heard it when it was introduced. It's counter-intuitive and ambitious, so it's shit.
jet_heller@reddit
What does the subsystem run on?
It runs on windows. It's a windows subsystem.
What is the subsystem for?
It's for running linux.
It's a windows subsystem for running linux.
And yea, the naming is shit.
cassepipe@reddit
I guess the problem stems from the ambiguity of for
For linux may mean "for runnning linux" or "made to run on linux"
Gangsir@reddit
This is probably one of those things that changes based on whether you learned english first or as a second language.
jet_heller@reddit
Exactly. Hence the naming is shit.
HeyKid_HelpComputer@reddit
So it's a subsystem of Linux that was made for Windows?
A Linux Subsystem for Windows?
jet_heller@reddit
No. The subsystem does not run on linux. It is a windows subsystem.
nixle@reddit
Should be *nix subystem for Windows : NSFW
KornKalle@reddit
PR won't be accepted unless you somehow squash "Copilot" into the new name
Potential-Curve-2994@reddit
It is linux and it is a windows subsystem so..
Mordiken@reddit
No because it's Windows that's providing a subsystem to run Linux, it's not Linux that's providing a subsystem to run Windows.
djfdhigkgfIaruflg@reddit
It's a branding thing
kalzEOS@reddit
Nope. Think about it this way, Windows has several subsystems, and one of them is for Linux. Another one (hypothetically) is for macos, and another for freebsd and so on.
budgetboarvessel@reddit
Backwards naming has been a thing since the X server.
Charming-Designer944@reddit
It is running alongside Windows, using Windows for I/O.
the Windows Subsystem for (running) Linux
But it is even more twisted considering that there is no Linux in WSL1, only a partial kernel emulatorn layer. So should have been something along the Windows Subsystem for running Linux applications.
NimrodvanHall@reddit
Welcome to the world of marketing. Where facts don’t really matter.
diiiiima@reddit
The answer is likely very simple: "Linux" is a trademark, and Microsoft is not allowed to use a name that starts with "Linux" without approval from the Linux Foundation.
biffbobfred@reddit
Windows has to be the first part of the name. For marketing reasons.
Does it make sense? Debatable. But you’re arguing logic where it’s not as relevant
high-tech-low-life@reddit
Who cares? That is a Windows thing.
XD7006@reddit
linux is literally in the name
high-tech-low-life@reddit
So is Windows. Most of the problems I have had with WSL have required knowing more about Windows than Linux. So I consider it more Windows problem space than Linux problem space.
Do you have first hand experience to the contrary?
XD7006@reddit
This post is literally just about the name, not any of the technical problems with it.
high-tech-low-life@reddit
And my comment is that WSL is for Windows users, so I don't care what they call it.
Narishma@reddit
Both names are bad because they can easily be misinterpreted to mean the opposite of what you want.
Narrow_Victory1262@reddit
I fixed it by not using it. I have a vm under windows where I install a machine from an iso file. not debian, sorry.
jerrygreenest1@reddit
That’s a subsystem of Windows? Yes. So, Windows subsystem. What is that subsystem for? Linux environment. So, Windows subsystem for Linux.
MoussaAdam@reddit
Both work
Linux Subsystem for Windows: it's a linux system, it's a subsystem, and it's for windows.
Windows subsystem for Linux: it's a "windows subsystem" just like the "Memory Management" code in the NT kernel is a "windows subsystem". this subsystem isn't for memory management however, it's for Linux to be able to run on windows.
proton_badger@reddit
Yeah, it makes sense to me and you have to have the subsystem before you can install Linux. But either works, I really don't mind/care either way.
Outrageous_Trade_303@reddit
It's a "windows subsystem" that can run linux.
il_basso@reddit
When is LSW where you can have a windows subsystem inside Linux?
reginald1212@reddit
Finally someone who thinks the same as me.
No_Cookie3005@reddit
So Linux subsystem for Windows is wine?
TheSodesa@reddit
They have to put the word Windows first, to promote the fact that it is a festure of Windows. In other words, I agree with you, but the marketing department at Microsoft has the interests of Microsoft in mind, when coming up with product names.
stevorkz@reddit
I think what they were going for is Windows…is providing a subsystem…for a Linux environment. Regardless of whether it makes sense or not they are the only ones who name virtualisation with that logic at least that I’ve seen. The traditional virtualisation hierarchy goes bare metal>OS/hypervisor>Virtual Machine. From my understanding WSL2 uses HyperV so it is literally like that. Knowing them they probably don’t want to imply that Linux is in any way providing some form of functionality for Windows to be windows. I know it sounds far fetched but they really don’t like Linux. If the world wasn’t benefiting from Linux as much as it is they wouldn’t implement WSL. But they know Linux’ presence is too strong to completely ignore because it would put windows behind in the current tech climate
redditor100101011101@reddit
No. It is a subsystem of Windows, which runs Linux.
jacob_ewing@reddit
Welcome to the English language, where one set of words can have multiple meanings. It brings to mind the Oxford comma which is used for that very reason.
stevorkz@reddit
Thing is it’s not really running on top of windows. With virtual machines, the virtualisation hierarchy goes bare metal>hypervisor>virtual machine. In this instance it goes windows>windows subsystem for Linux>Linux environment.
sambdafunction@reddit
It's the way Microsoft names things. It's a subsystem that facilitates Linux. If it wasn't Microsoft it probably would be LSW. Also you've got a better acronym WSL (which you could pronounce "weasel").
SouthEastSmith@reddit
Do people still run windows? Havent seen it in ages.
Twin_spark@reddit
I call it 'thank fuck'
dack42@reddit
Microsoft has a reputation for being terrible at naming things. This one isn't great, but it's nowhere near their worst/most confusing. The also have a tendency to rename things and not update all the documentation, which just adds to the confusion and makes it difficult to search for things.
Prometheus720@reddit
You're naming it like a Linux person would name it.
If you were a corpo slug, you'd name it after your corp so everyone knew you made it.
dusktreader@reddit
But then we couldn't call it The Weasel!
marc0ne@reddit
Both useless.
sxdw@reddit
I think it's Windows Subsystem for [running] Linux.
theblackheffner@reddit
you should make a better version that works seamlessly, is it me or should i be able to access my vm from a dbl click on a icon? i just want the kde stuff to work from the same desktop i boot up my system in, is that too much to ask? i know it can be done but it's been a skill issue for me
IntelligentSpite6364@reddit
It was designed for developers needing to replicate their server tools in a windows desktop environment
netcrynoip@reddit
You’re confusing WSL for the Linux operating system that is running on top of it, for example Ubuntu or Arch. WSL is the Windows layer that makes it possible to run Linux binaries. When someone says WSL, they mean the subsystem itself, not the distro. Docker containers run on it too. Google does the same thing with ARC, the Android Runtime for ChromeOS. They name the runtime first and then say what it’s for. It’s a common naming convention. WSL is the host feature; Linux runs inside it.
Hytht@reddit
Google's ARC is
WSL is
I don't see how Google did the same thing as Microsoft did. actually the opposite
netcrynoip@reddit
Should I own this or just delete my post? You know I wanted to learn more about all this so I asked chatgpt about it and it explained it backwards giving me that example. It was really confident too. Well I feel stupid for using chatgpt for research on that topic.
GOKOP@reddit
Windows has subsystems. WSL is a Windows Subsystem for (running) Linux.
Hytht@reddit
That would be a huge L to start it's name with a L
Windows things usually start with a W - WSL, W11, WxWidgets, WGL etc. it's just more elegant
Specialist-Delay-199@reddit
Windows is the brand, subsystem for Linux is the product.
UnassumingDrifter@reddit
Agreed
sswam@reddit
It would be more logical, but who gives a shit.
illusory42@reddit
I was of the same opinion until I realized that it probably stands for „windows bits and bobs for running linux“.
Yes the naming is horrid.
joz42@reddit
Or "Windows subsystem for Linux applications".