Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOS Subsystem for Linux

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 182 posts

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#101

Post by zorked »

derefr wrote: post #100
iherbig wrote: post #52

Earlier 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…

"Windows Linux-ABI Subsystem" would have been crystal-clear.

Microsoft has a tradition with these confusing backwards names.

They used to have a product called Windows Services for UNIX [1] which was, you guessed it, UNIX Services for Windows: NFS, Telnet, cron, rsh, etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#103

Post by devit »

haileys wrote: post #35
kentonv wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this explained somewhere? I'd love to read how it works (without trying to understand the source code).

Author here. I am planning to do an in depth write up of how this works, but it seems Hacker News found it sooner :) When DSL is first invoked at the command line it boots up the Linux kernel which takes over control of the computer from DOS. Now here’s the trick: DSL makes use of a processor feature called VM8086 which allows for a 32 bit operating system to run legacy 16 bit code mostly natively. This feature is ho…

Have you tried the approach of booting Linux and then creating a normal fullscreen qemu/KVM-based VM initialized with the memory state of the DOS OS, with a configuration so that the transition works correctly?

That would make the whole system fully robust and safe, and also support running XMS/EMS managers, DOS extenders, Windows and other bootloaders from the DOS VM.

I'm not sure however whether you would need to modify qemu to make it work and how hard that would be (also I guess that would have less hacky fun factor).

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#104

Post by shmerl »

plus wrote: post #27

There 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.

It says "DOS subsystem for Linux". The way I'm reading it:

1. It's for Linux (so Linux is the host).

2. It creates some subsystem that runs DOS (either emulated, virtualized or translated like Wine is doing for Windows on Linux).

That can allow running DOS games on Linux for example, instead of using DOSbox for it.

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#105

Post by incanus77 »

derekp7 wrote: post #14

If I recall correctly, there was at one time a Linux boot loader that ran from DOS, which could make use of DOS device drivers. I recall using Yggdrasil Linux which had an option to boot this way, which used the DOS driver for my SCSI card and CDROM drive to make it available under Linux.

Still is: http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/

I'm using it currently on a 386SX with 8MB of RAM (not to post this, however).

Edit: Ah, this doesn't do the driver bit. But it works pretty well in itself.

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#106

Post by mikewarot »

hunter2_ wrote: post #58
mikewarot wrote: post #39

If someone has Linux, wouldn't they just run FreeDOS in a VM?

They don't have Linux.

Why would someone choose such a stupid name then? It's "for Linux"... which means you already have Linux, and you want to run DOS in a sub-system (a VM)

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#107

Post by UncleSlacky »

_euac wrote: post #31

This used to be the best way to try Linux before live CDs became a thing. The first Linux distro I ever used (DragonLinux) was 'installed' by unzipping an 8mb zip file and running a BAT file. You could 'uninstall' it by deleting the directory it created next time you booted into DOS.

Slackware had "ZipSlack" which would fit on a 100Mb Zip disk, or could be installed (read: copied) into a DOS directory and run from there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZipSlack

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#108

Post by Conan_Kudo »

Joker_vD wrote: post #80
detaro wrote: post #56

Earlier 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…

You could use the possessive form here: "Windows' Subsystem for Linux", but that's not a thing product managers like to use in naming...

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#109

Post by dm319 »

iherbig wrote: post #52
plus wrote: post #27

There 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…

Also, why linux? Linux is the kernel, which is not what is being run, more like everything on a gnu/linux system apart from linux.

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#110

Post by antihero »

plus wrote: post #27

There 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.

Would prefer me some LSD to be honest.
Post reply on HN