Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a quick skim through the code: - it first, if not yet present, starts Linux, via normal Linux kernel load. It passes over some pointers from DOS into /init arguments so that /init can know about DOS' context when Linux was first loaded - Linux's /init then uses VM86 [1] to call back into DOS, back to the function that was run in DOS before Linux was loaded (vm86_return). This is a bit of a 'draw the rest of the…
Please elaborate on the owl reference!
DOS Subsystem for Linux
91–100 of 182 posts
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
They're both phrased unnaturally, IMO. This is why we teach sentence diagramming in elementary school. Maybe the person who came up with "WSL" wasn't a native English-speaker?
Something that should come up early in sentence diagramming but often isn't explained well enough is that sentence diagrams aren't context free, often can be ambiguous, and depend on the context of the speaker to determine referents. Sentence diagrams in the real world are rarely as easy as elementary school examples.
In this case, the context known to the speaker but often missed when trying to "sentence diagram" WSL involves the part "Windows Subsystem". That referent, to which the original author was quite familiar, is invoked in WSL as a single noun in part of the larger noun phrase, and while you could continue to sentence diagram break "Windows Subsystem" into constituent parts here, it is important to remember it as a single connected "atom" to which "for Linux" modifies in the overall noun phrase of "(Windows Subsystem) for Linux". Given that context/referent, the sentence diagram here is unambiguous to the original team/"speaker". It's the audience with much less familiarity with the referent/context in question that has ambiguity problems in trying to "sentence diagram" the noun phrase.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#93There 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.
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…
It doesn't matter at all if you write 'for', as the possession is totally unclear.
"Windows Subsystem for Linux"
-----
Is the 'windows subsystem' for linux?
or is the 'subsystem for linux' a windows branded feature?
If you asked most people they would probably choose incorrectly.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#94There 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,…
" on " strikes me as unambiguous.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#95Earlier 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)_/¯
A "Linux subsystem" is a Linux system that is a part of a bigger system. And "Linux audio subsystem" is an audio system that is a part of Linux. And if you swap the words, you get "audio Linux subsystem" which doesn't make sense, not really. So the proper name would be "Windows Linux subsystem", but I concede that it does sound really weird (because both Windows and Linux are the same kind of things, they're OSes). A…
This is helpful, but the composition rules are weird and confusing.
It's true that a Linux Subsystem is a subsystem of Linux, but an "X for Linux" is a component of Linux or an application for Linux.
When you put them together, it seems that the "for" wins the battle. In parsing terminology, it has lower precedence (though I'm sure the actual rules of English are more complex than that indicates).
I'd love to see an actual linguist comment on why this phrase is so confusing.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#96There 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.
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…
Why not use "in"/"on"?
Linux Subsystem on Windows
Linux Subsystem in Windows
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#97There 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.
Next up is Microsoft's browser: Windows Subsystem for HTML
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#98There 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.
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…
Perhaps the confused commenters should read the post before commenting. Crazy as that sounds.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "Linux subsystem" is a Linux system that is a part of a bigger system. And "Linux audio subsystem" is an audio system that is a part of Linux. And if you swap the words, you get "audio Linux subsystem" which doesn't make sense, not really. So the proper name would be "Windows Linux subsystem", but I concede that it does sound really weird (because both Windows and Linux are the same kind of things, they're OSes). A…
This is helpful, but the composition rules are weird and confusing. It's true that a Linux Subsystem is a subsystem of Linux, but an "X for Linux" is a component of Linux or an application for Linux. When you put them together, it seems that the "for" wins the battle. In parsing terminology, it has lower precedence (though I'm sure the actual rules of English are more complex than that indicates). I'd love to see an…
I have an English degree and can confidently say the issue is the implicit understood possessive in the correct parsing. As it stands, “for” dominates mentally because the phrase obviously needs a possessive to make sense and “for” denotes possession. If it were “Window’s Subsystem for Linux” or “DOS’s Subsystem for Linux”, explicating the proper possession, the parsing trouble would disappear.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#100There 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.
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…
"Windows Linux-ABI Subsystem" would have been crystal-clear.