Since it's not entirely clear: this works by loading a Linux kernel into unused memory, saving the current state of DOS, turning over control of the computer to Linux, then having the init process start a new that uses the vm86 system call to resume execution of DOS.
DOS Subsystem for Linux
131–140 of 182 posts
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#132DOS 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.
> should be called WSL for DOS
Windows subsystem for linux for DOS. Sounds right
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#133Apart from the naming issue, wouldn't "DOSBOX on Linux" be more useful?
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, but the name "Linux Subsystem for Windows" would have been much less confusing.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#135Serious question, simply put: why? Was this done for academic reasons, or is there an application for this technology in mind?
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#136It could be useful for DOS users who want to run Nethack 3.6.6 under Linux.
Altough running Nethack under Minix 2 would be easier.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need it to run DOS binaries on DOS.
It’s not clear if this is DOS or a DOS shell that actually executes Linux binaries. The description is confusing, hence my question.
It is literally DOS, so it executes real mode binaries natively.
Okay, actually, this is more like VMWare ESX in the 4.0 days. It's kind of, uh, inside out.
Basically it's DOS, which launches Linux via DSL, which then runs a task out of init in vm86 mode that uses KVM to _continue_ the DOS that launched it as if it were the only thing running.
The DOS doesn't know anything has happened, even though the rug has been pulled out from under it, and it is now running in a KVM VM guest. You just can't tell anything is different because all the BIOS/real mode stuff is unchanged.
You get your prompt back when a native Linux binary finishes but it's the linux kernel emulating the DOS session after that first command, until you reboot.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#138This should come preinstalled on literally any and all Linux flavours. It would remove so many barriers for folks first trying Linux after decades of Windows.
I feel like for most Windows users, using DOS is probably as (or even more) foreign as using Linux. How many times do you think the average Windows user has used a command prompt in the past year?
Counter question: how many times do you think the average Windows user has tried installing Linux? Because it's probably fewer than those who use what they'll invariable call the "dos box" for something, so having something in place to make the transition for those Windows users who DO venture out of their comfort zone to give Linux (yet another?) try easier is great.
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#139Earlier 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)_/¯
Better choice would have been "Subsystem for Linux on Windows". Its all indeed a big naming confusion
Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux
#140Earlier 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)_/¯
And if you think "Windows Subsystem for Linux" is bad, the subsystem that enables the Win32 API is csrss or "Client/Server Runtime Subsystem" and it makes you think: why does that subsystem not mention Windows but the Linux one does?