Live data from Hacker News

DOS Subsystem for Linux

github.com

81–90 of 182 posts

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#81
post #27

There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.

I've been fielding these questions all day. Saying the same thing. It's for "DOS" so you can run _bash_. Ok? People got all excited for Prince of Persia... smh. +1

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#82
post #27

There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.

i think the confusion comes from the phrase "for those who prefer a DOS environment".

maybe it could be phrased as "for those who want linux but need to run DOS as their main OS"

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#83
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)_/¯

A "Linux subsystem" is a Linux system that is a part of a bigger system. And "Linux audio subsystem" is an audio system that is a part of Linux. And if you swap the words, you get "audio Linux subsystem" which doesn't make sense, not really. So the proper name would be "Windows Linux subsystem", but I concede that it does sound really weird (because both Windows and Linux are the same kind of things, they're OSes). A…

Oh, true, Linux actually uses the term in that context, somehow didn't think of that.

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#85
post #52
post #27

There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.

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…

It makes sense as "A windows subsystem for Linux". Unfortunately, dropping the "A" makes it ambigious.

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#88
post #27

There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.

They're both phrased unnaturally, IMO. The suffix "for Linux" strongly implies it's software for use on Linux. It's like the "4j" and "4win" suffixes, implying software built for the Java and Windows environments, respectively. What's more, Windows or DOS as an adjective of subsystem bind more tightly than "for Linux". So if you were to start dropping parts of the name, you'd drop "for Linux" first. Except you can't,…

They're both phrased unnaturally, IMO.

This is why we teach sentence diagramming in elementary school.

Maybe the person who came up with "WSL" wasn't a native English-speaker?

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#89

Earlier 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.

There was a POSIX subsystem in Windows NT before Microsoft acquired Interix (which became Windows Services for Unix).

Re: DOS Subsystem for Linux

#90
post #52
post #27

There are a ton of comments here that seem to be misunderstanding what this software is. This creates a WSL-like environment on a DOS host system. It does not create a DOS environment on a Linux host. I'm not sure where this misunderstanding even comes from; the name is perfectly analogous to WSL.

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…

As bad as the original name was, "Bash on Ubuntu on Windows", I think it was still better than WSL.
Post reply on HN