that's still wrong though. it's not a subsystem "for Linux", it's just a system that is Linux. it's still for windows.
it's windows' subsystem for running Linux. no amount of tweaking the name can make it correct of it still contains a phrase of the form "[noun] for Linux"
It's because it's a Windows subsystem (a pre-existing term) for running Linux. Or the first version was; I believe for WSL2 this is no longer technically accurate.
WSL1 was, indeed, an NT subsystem for native Linux API support. WSL1 did not even run Linux kernel, as WSL1 was basically a reimplementation of Linux kernel.
WSL2 is just Linux kernel in a Hyper-V and the term is no longer accurate, I admit.
The reason is that the implementation was not perfect and required constant chasing of Linux API changes.
Honestly, between Microsoft opening things like .NET up and Valve's work on DirectX translations, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if MS just put in the rest of the work and rebased Windows to the Linux kernel.
This is one of the dumbest things Redditors constantly suggest. It makes zero sense for Microsoft to replace the only half decent part of Windows and erase all backwards compatibility in the process. There is no reason for them to do this. It would end their company.
The only thing I can think of a use case for something like this would be if you had a very particular machine that needed to run a very old Windows OS to run it. There's CNC machines etc that rely on ANCIENT platforms so I guess you could use a modern machine to then run this and then interface with said machine?
webtroter@reddit
Can we have a Linux Subsystem for Windows now?
Indolent_Bard@reddit
That's technically what Windows subsystem for Linux is.
StatementOwn4896@reddit
Ya the word order never really sat right with me
Whatisjuicelol@reddit
Gotta think of it like
Microsoft Windows presents: Subsystem for Linux
AncomBunker47@reddit
Windows' subsystem for Linux, the apostrophe is what is missing to make it intelligible
hpxvzhjfgb@reddit
that's still wrong though. it's not a subsystem "for Linux", it's just a system that is Linux. it's still for windows.
it's windows' subsystem for running Linux. no amount of tweaking the name can make it correct of it still contains a phrase of the form "[noun] for Linux"
FriendlyProblem1234@reddit
It is a subsystem of Windows, in other words a Windows subsystem. It is for Linux userspace/applications.
Subsystem of Windows for (running) Linux (applications).
Subsystem of Windows for Linux (userspace).
English is weird, but this naming does make sense.
Oricol@reddit
Microsoft marketing has always sucked at naming. I'm surprised it hasn't been renamed to wsl copilot.
Zomunieo@reddit
Windows Linuxbox 360 Series X?
dovahshy15@reddit
As another comment explained, it's because Windows (or rather, NT kernel) has these "subsystems": win32 is one, and there was a OS/2 and a Unix one.
Then MS used this to create a Linux one, but since performance was bad, they changed it to rely on virtualization instead (with Hyper-V).
H0t4p1netr33S@reddit
Copilot System for Linux
turdas@reddit
It's because it's a Windows subsystem (a pre-existing term) for running Linux. Or the first version was; I believe for WSL2 this is no longer technically accurate.
No, I don't like it either.
Zatujit@reddit
apparently from my understanding they did it purely for trademark reasons
Speaktrap@reddit
WSL1 was, indeed, an NT subsystem for native Linux API support. WSL1 did not even run Linux kernel, as WSL1 was basically a reimplementation of Linux kernel.
WSL2 is just Linux kernel in a Hyper-V and the term is no longer accurate, I admit.
The reason is that the implementation was not perfect and required constant chasing of Linux API changes.
huskypuppers@reddit
Honestly, between Microsoft opening things like .NET up and Valve's work on DirectX translations, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if MS just put in the rest of the work and rebased Windows to the Linux kernel.
lilguy2002@reddit
This is one of the dumbest things Redditors constantly suggest. It makes zero sense for Microsoft to replace the only half decent part of Windows and erase all backwards compatibility in the process. There is no reason for them to do this. It would end their company.
florence_pug@reddit
Why?
hifidood@reddit
The only thing I can think of a use case for something like this would be if you had a very particular machine that needed to run a very old Windows OS to run it. There's CNC machines etc that rely on ANCIENT platforms so I guess you could use a modern machine to then run this and then interface with said machine?
Ilmertoh@reddit
I still fondly remember my CNC-Teacher: "It's the best of the best, the newest of the new!"
Turns around and turns on machine
MS-DOS booting up...
Ahh, the german education system
SubjectiveMouse@reddit
GeoStreber@reddit
For the good of all of us, except the ones who are dead.
ButtonExposure@reddit
They should name it Cake - Cake Ain't a Knock-off Emulator.
ven_@reddit
I know most people don’t remember but computing used to be fun.
ZuriPL@reddit
probably as an experiment, or a learning expierence
Junior_Common_9644@reddit
Why not? It's cool.
SpaceCadet2000@reddit
Would've been nice 30 years ago...
Odd_Room5952@reddit
I kinda want to try and install this in reactos
Speaktrap@reddit
ReactOS is based on NT, not 9x NT does not support VxD drivers, which are required for this.
TrueLunacy@reddit
There's not a chance, this has horrifying kernel-level black magic.
walmartbonerpills@reddit
This is pretty interesting. Does it handle x11?
D3PyroGS@reddit
pretty sure it already does. I used Pika via WSL to drive my backups, for a time
BCMM@reddit
There were already X11 servers for win9x, so I guess that just depends on whether the Linux can make network connections to the Windows side.
rinaldo23@reddit
I want Linux subsystem for Temple OS
ebcdicZ@reddit
1) Have AI learn Holy C, to make a “what if” update to TempleOS as a competitive 64 modern safe bit OS. 2) ??? 3) Profits
Farados55@reddit
Look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power