Live data from Hacker News

Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

social.hails.org

171–180 of 265 posts

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember myself on my first year of CS, set theory classes, at the whiteboard, trying to make a proof, but there something I was not able to prove at all, so I said 'it's trivial' and the doctor said 'yeah, it's trivial' and we went further.

Maybe it wasn't trivial at all for both of you ...

No, this was really something trivial, in the sense that you could feel it's true. Like 2+2=4 but to prove it you need to create a set of functions, axiom and a theorem

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#172

This being on the front page the same day as "Show HN submissions tripled and now mostly have the same vibe-coded look" is nice to see. One person spends 6 years understanding Win9x internals to run a modern Linux kernel inside it. The other thread is full of apps that took 20 minutes to prompt into existence. Posts like this make me happy.

The project's readme states "Proudly written without AI." Love seeing this.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#173
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I…

Kernel-Ex and Basilisk and friends (Serpent browser or whatever it's called) plus some TLS stuff can browse the modern web just fine. JS, OTOH... get NoScript ASAP and block selectively.

Or better, ditch the web completely and head to Gopher/Gemini.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember myself on my first year of CS, set theory classes, at the whiteboard, trying to make a proof, but there something I was not able to prove at all, so I said 'it's trivial' and the doctor said 'yeah, it's trivial' and we went further.

"Trivial" doesn't exclusively mean "easy", though it is often used as a euphemism like that. In a literal sense, it very well may have been trivial, even if neither you nor the professor would have been able to easily show it.

What's your definition of trivial?

The one I've always flown with is, trivial means (1) a special case of a more general theory (2) which flattens many of the extra frills and considerations of the general theory and (3) is intuitively clear ("easy") to appreciate and compute.

From this perspective, everything is trivial from the relative perspective of a god. I know of no absolute definition of trivial.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha ha doing Unix like it was 1989. At the time I thought configure was the greatest of human achievements since I was distributing software amongst Sun machines of varying vintage and a Pyramid. I want to say good times but I prefer now ha ha

autotools felt old even in 90's

Autotools was designed to produce a configure script with zero dependencies other than the compiler toolchain itself. I always thought it would be a good way to bootstrap a system configuration database (like the kind X11 already had, the name I forget) but it turned out to be too convenient to just drop autotools into every project instead.

So now even today, compiling any GNU package means probing every last feature from scratch and spitting out obscenely rococo scripts and Makefiles tens of thousands of lines long. We can do better, and have, but damn are there a lot of active codebases out there that still haven't caught up.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#177

Direct link without the social hop-through: https://codeberg.org/hails/wsl9x

Thanks. Mastodon still requires executing javascript just to read a post, so I usually ignore it.

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/23153

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/19953

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#178
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 very confusing. When you pick "MSYS2", you are building exclusively for the MSYS2 target environment, and might not have proper compatible windows headers. When you pick "MINGW32/64", you are instead building for the normal windows environment, and get proper windows headers. But if you didn't know that, you would end up confused about why your program is not building.

It doesn't help that the package simply named "gcc" is for the MSYS2 target.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. Technically speaking, just enabling hyper-v turns your base windows install into a VM. Wsl2 then just runs along side

Enabling hyper-v turns your base windows install into a VM host, not a virtual machine itself.

It's kind of both. Hyper-V is a bare-metal (type 1) hypervisor. Windows runs virtualized, one level above it, in a privileged (host) VM, next to other (guest) VMs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-V#Architecture

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#180
post #93

Is this person a wizard? To me, this seems an impossible feat. But I wonder how it seems to people who understand how it works? I'm reminded of this joke: Two mathematicians are talking. One says a theorem is trivial. After two hours of explanation, the other agrees that it is indeed trivial.

The primary function of modern operating systems is to allow multiple programs to run, without interfering with each other, even if they try too. This means that each program can only read its own limited amount of memory and only gets to use the processor for a limited time, before another program gets a turn. Windows did not start using those features until Windows NT, which XP is based off of. Through Windows 98,…

That's greatly oversimplified, or less generously, just flat out wrong. Win32 programs have always had their own isolated address space. That infamous BSOD is the result of memory protection hardware catching an access to something outside of that address space. When you open a DOS box, it uses the paging and V86 hardware mechanisms to create a new virtual machine, even though it shares some memory with the instance of DOS from which Windows was booted.

What Windows 9x didn't have was security. A program could interfere with these mechanisms, but usually only if it was designed to do that, not as a result of a random bug (if the entire machine crashed, it was usually because of a buggy driver).

Post reply on HN