If you take the abbreviation style from Microsoft...
Windows Subsystem for Linux -> WSL
Linux Subsystem for DOS -> LSD
I like it!
DOS Subsystem for Linux
61–70 of 182 posts
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine it's because WSL is a terribly confusing name itself for a lot of people. There are two ways to read "Windows Subsystem for Linux": 1. This is a subsystem that runs on Windows that enables Linux binaries. 2. This is a subsystem that runs on Linux that enables Windows binaries. The confusion comes in the fact that when I write those two sentences, I naturally want to write "This is a subsystem FOR Wind…
The WSL terminology really only makes sense if you are aware that Windows has the concept of subsystems - and which is why swapping other labels makes even less sense. I.e. the run-Windows-on-Linux thing would probably not be called Linux Subsystem for Windows, because what is a "Linux Subsystem"? And of course WSL2 isn't a subsystem anymore, but is stuck with the product name. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was under the impression that the name arose out of trademark requirements.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#63There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.
Grammatically, I read the title and thought "yes! finally a way to run those Dell firmware updaters instead of using FreeDOS boot sticks" and then read the comments to find out it's backwards in nature. The phrase is "bad English" in a colloquial sense.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#64i saw a youtube video the other day entitled "why learn asm in 2020", i guess for doing something like this.
this project looks really cool. i don't hear a whole lot of people using dos nowadays but for a tinkering around that would be awesome.
hats off to the author. it's amazing one dude could code this.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a thing you execute under DOS to run linux commands. it provides Linux. (or at least pretends to do it that way around)
Misunderstandings aside (I am fully up to speed on that), why do this and WSL each use "for" to mean "provides"? In most software contexts, the noun after the word "for" is the thing you already had, like "Word for Windows" et al.
I assume this uses it purely to make fun of Windows.
Windows has the concept of subsystems - technically the Win32 API is also just a subsystem around the NT kernel that provides the "Windows API". Windows NT also had one providing an OS/2 API, and one providing POSIX API - the latter later evolved into/was replaced by "Windows Services for UNIX" - assume there and with WSL the intent is to read it as "for Linux/UNIX applications".
But why specifically this confusion phrasing is unclear, maybe they wanted to keep the "Windows" brand attached to the thing - i.e. treat "Windows Subsystem" and "Windows Services" as one term?
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#66There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.
They're both phrased unnaturally, IMO.
The suffix "for Linux" strongly implies it's software for use on Linux. It's like the "4j" and "4win" suffixes, implying software built for the Java and Windows environments, respectively.
What's more, Windows or DOS as an adjective of subsystem bind more tightly than "for Linux". So if you were to start dropping parts of the name, you'd drop "for Linux" first. Except you can't, because then it's just the Windows Subsystem.
LSW would have been a much more natural name. In a conversation about Windows subsystems, you could refer to it as the Linux Subsystem. If other operating systems picked up on the idea, they would have their own Linux subsystems, e.g. Linux Subsystem for macOS. If you wanted to check if your OS had anything like it, you could search "is there a Linux subsystem for FreeBSD?" Which might turn up results about the Linux ABI in FreeBSD. Speaking of which, imagine if it had been named the FreeBSD ABI for Linux. What an awful pattern! You can't even repeat the pattern unless both modifiers are proper nouns! Could you have called the VFS Subsystem the "FreeBSD Subsystem for VFS"?
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#67There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.
Why not compare it with Wine instead?
Besides, latest WSL is not like that anymore, it's a hypervisor running a VM now.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#68> DOS Subsystem for Linux
> A WSL alternative for users who prefer an MS-DOS environment.
Very confusing description. Is it made for Linux? So what does it have to do with WSL which is made for Windows? May be it's a Wine analog for running DOS programs on Linux then or it's actually emulating things like DosBox does?
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#69DOS Subsystem for Linux means exactly that, you are using a DOS subsystem in Linux. That is why it is confusing. If it is a WSL for DOS, that is what it should be called.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
The WSL terminology really only makes sense if you are aware that Windows has the concept of subsystems - and which is why swapping other labels makes even less sense. I.e. the run-Windows-on-Linux thing would probably not be called Linux Subsystem for Windows, because what is a "Linux Subsystem"? And of course WSL2 isn't a subsystem anymore, but is stuck with the product name. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was under the impression that the name arose out of trademark requirements. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14093517
Windows has had subsystems since the OS/2 era, and WSL1 was actually such a subsystem. Initrix was the Microsoft POSIX Subsystem.