DOS Subsystem for Linux

Post by knome » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 11:13 PM UTC

tobinfricke wrote: post #62

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)_/¯

I was under the impression that the name arose out of trademark requirements. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14093517

Post by smegger001 » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 11:17 PM UTC

plus wrote: post #33

TheRealPomax wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GIF's prety much crystal clear: it runs QEMU on Linux. And QEMU runs whatever you want, because it's a machine emulator/virtualiser, in this case it's running as x86 with MS DOS on top.

No.... QEMU is being used to run DOS, since a) who runs DOS on metal these days, and b) how would you record the screen if you were running DOS on metal (I suppose you could use a capture card). Linux is running in a WSL-like environment on the DOS host.

Post by p1necone » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 11:19 PM UTC

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #140

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)_/¯

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?

Post by skissane » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 11:38 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #56

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…

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)_/¯

Post by waheoo » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

evilsnoopi3 wrote: post #99

hyperpape wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is helpful, but the composition rules are weird and confusing. It's true that a Linux Subsystem is a subsystem of Linux, but an "X for Linux" is a component of Linux or an application for Linux. When you put them together, it seems that the "for" wins the battle. In parsing terminology, it has lower precedence (though I'm sure the actual rules of English are more complex than that indicates). I'd love to see an…

I have an English degree and can confidently say the issue is the implicit understood possessive in the correct parsing. As it stands, “for” dominates mentally because the phrase obviously needs a possessive to make sense and “for” denotes possession. If it were “Window’s Subsystem for Linux” or “DOS’s Subsystem for Linux”, explicating the proper possession, the parsing trouble would disappear.