111–120 of 265 posts
Does this mean it runs on Linux or runs on Windows. I can never tell with this MS "subsystem" naming.
Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?
The name we shipped was even worse than Windows Subsystem for Linux, honestly. At least Microsoft spent some time on it.
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.
Incredible that current Linux kernels still have 486 support!
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…
Is this Win4Lin resurrected?
The Wikipedia page is not verify informative and presents it as a regular VM (possibly mixing up 9x and later versions that run the NT line of kernels). The manual is a bit more informative about the tech:
ilab.usc.edu/packages/special/Win4Lin-3.0.1-manual.pdf
I’m a bit surprised it hasn’t been mentioned a lot in the comments. Maybe it’s a bit too old for most people here (Linux in the late 90ies/early 00s was a much smaller community)?
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.
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.
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.
As someone who mostly understands what's going on - It does not seem like wizardry to me, but I am very impressed that the author figured out the long list of arcane details needed to make it work.