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

Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

social.hails.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 265 posts

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#71

Post by ktm5j »

radiator wrote: post #27
rahen wrote: post #10

Before WSL, the best ways to run unmodified Linux binaries inside Windows were CoLinux and flinux. http://www.colinux.org/ https://github.com/wishstudio/flinux flinux essentially had the architecture of WSL1, while CoLinux was more like WSL2 with a Linux kernel side-loaded. Cygwin was technically the correct approach: native POSIX binaries on Windows rather than hacking in some foreign Linux plumbing. Since it was me…

Nowadays MSYS2, which does depend on cygwin under the hood, offers such a package manager (pacman of Arch Linux) and it is quite a user friendly to run native POSIX binaries on Windows without a linux VM.

MSYS2 is my favorite in this area. Super lightweight and easy to use, highly recommend.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#75

Post by collinmanderson »

tjoff wrote: post #18
vrganj wrote: post #5

Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?

If you google there are many reasonable reasons for it. But the most straight forward is: > Because we cannot name something leading with a trademark owned by someone else. https://xcancel.com/richturn_ms/status/1245481405947076610?s...

> Because we cannot name something leading with a trademark owned by someone else.

And this WSL project is going to run into the same problem.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#76

Post by keepamovin »

defrost wrote: post #8
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #2

If I can get this to work (haven't tried yet) it directly solves a problem I have right now this week right here in 2026, 30 years after Windows 95 was even a thing. Yes, I have weird problems. I get to look after some very weird shit.

Old still running 24/7 industrial processing circuit with oddball bespoke addons based on DOS / early windows ?? Still got those in this part of the world sharing space with state of the art autonomous 100+ tonne robo trucks.

If you're dealing with weird legacy 9x systems in 2026, another headache you've probably run into is getting them to talk to the modern web (since modern TLS and JS completely break old browsers).

I actually built a win9x compatibility mode into BrowserBox specifically for this kind of weirdness. You run the server on a modern system and launch it with bbx win9x-run, and it proxies the modern web to legacy clients. It works surprisingly well with IE5, IE6, and old Netscape on Windows 95/98/NT. Might be a fun addition to your retro utility belt!

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#77

Post by mghackerlady »

ginko wrote: post #63
tjoff wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you google there are many reasonable reasons for it. But the most straight forward is: > Because we cannot name something leading with a trademark owned by someone else. https://xcancel.com/richturn_ms/status/1245481405947076610?s...

Should have called it LINE.

also trademarked

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#78

Post by keepamovin »

varispeed wrote: post #32

This could prompt me to finally assemble the Pentium desktop I have in storage in parts.

lol, if you do assemble that Pentium desktop, one of the first things you'll notice is that the modern web is completely unusable on it natively.

To get around that, I recently added a legacy compatibility mode to BrowserBox (bbx win9x-run). It basically lets you run the server on your modern daily driver, and access it via IE 5, IE 6, or Netscape on the Pentium box. It strips away the modern TLS/JS rendering issues and lets you actually browse the modern web from Windows 9x. Highly recommend giving it a spin if you get that machine built!

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#79

Post by voidfunc »

wongarsu wrote: post #66
nonethewiser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this has never made sense...

Especially since the other subsystems were referred to as the OS/2 subsystem, Posix subsystem, Win32 subsystem, Security subsystem, etc

It makes tons of sense if you understand marketing and that the brand "Windows" must always come first.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#80

Post by mrweasel »

GranPC wrote: post #55
ChrisRR wrote: post #43

By microsoft's naming scheme this should be Linux Subsystem for Windows

No? WSL is Linux on Windows — so W9xSL is Linux on Windows 9x. I think… :)

WSL is "Windows Subsystem for Linux", so this should be "Linux Subsystem for Windows 9x"
Post reply on HN