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

91–100 of 265 posts

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#91

Post by zingmars »

GranPC wrote: post #83
mrweasel wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSL is "Windows Subsystem for Linux", so this should be "Linux Subsystem for Windows 9x"

By Microsoft’s convention, that would be a way to run Windows 9x on Linux. It’s a bit confusing. Another example is “Windows Subsystem for Android”, which is what they use for running Android apps on Windows. I think the idea is that it’s not a “Windows Subsystem” for X, but rather a Windows “Subsystem for X”. (Edited: mixed it up on the last sentence.)

Yeah it makes more sense if you consider the word Windows' to be in possessive form.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#92

Post by mrweasel »

GranPC wrote: post #83
mrweasel wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSL is "Windows Subsystem for Linux", so this should be "Linux Subsystem for Windows 9x"

By Microsoft’s convention, that would be a way to run Windows 9x on Linux. It’s a bit confusing. Another example is “Windows Subsystem for Android”, which is what they use for running Android apps on Windows. I think the idea is that it’s not a “Windows Subsystem” for X, but rather a Windows “Subsystem for X”. (Edited: mixed it up on the last sentence.)

> that would be a way to run Windows 9x on Linux

Which is exactly what the post says this is. It's running Windows 9x on Linux kernel. It's strangely worded, but from the follow up comment, and the readme in the repo it seems clear that it's running on the Linux kernel.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#93

Post by andai »

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.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#94

Post by chungy »

voidfunc wrote: post #79
wongarsu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does that explain Word for Windows?

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#95

Post by andai »

mrweasel wrote: post #92
GranPC wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By Microsoft’s convention, that would be a way to run Windows 9x on Linux. It’s a bit confusing. Another example is “Windows Subsystem for Android”, which is what they use for running Android apps on Windows. I think the idea is that it’s not a “Windows Subsystem” for X, but rather a Windows “Subsystem for X”. (Edited: mixed it up on the last sentence.)

> that would be a way to run Windows 9x on Linux Which is exactly what the post says this is. It's running Windows 9x on Linux kernel. It's strangely worded, but from the follow up comment, and the readme in the repo it seems clear that it's running on the Linux kernel.

> WSL9x runs a modern Linux kernel (6.19 at time of writing) cooperatively inside the Windows 9x kernel

Pretty sure it's the other way around. But I haven't had my coffee yet ;)

Microsoft's naming scheme confuses me every single time though: "Windows Subsystem for Linux" actually runs Linux on Windows...

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#96

Post by electroly »

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…

Technically correct by some estimation, perhaps, but Cygwin is a crazy approach, was slow (contrary to the implication of the "low cruft" claim), was not as compatible as these other approaches, required recompilation, and was widely disliked at most points in its life. There's a lot of crazy voodoo stuff happening in cygwin1.dll to make this work; it totally qualifies as "hacking in some foreign Linux plumbing", it's just happening inside your process. Just picture how fork() is implemented inside cygwin1.dll without any system support.

Cygwin doesn't work at all in Windows AppContainer package isolation; too many voodoo hacks. MSYS2 uses it to this day, and as a result you can't run any MSYS2 binaries in an AppContainer. Had to take a completely different route for Claude Code sandboxing because of this: Claude Code wants Git for Windows, and Git for Windows distributes MSYS2-built binaries of bash.exe and friends. Truly native Windows builds don't do all the unusual compatibility hacks that cygwin1.dll requires; I found non-MSYS2-built binaries of the same programs all ran fine in AppContainer.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#97

Post by mrweasel »

andai wrote: post #95
mrweasel wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that would be a way to run Windows 9x on Linux Which is exactly what the post says this is. It's running Windows 9x on Linux kernel. It's strangely worded, but from the follow up comment, and the readme in the repo it seems clear that it's running on the Linux kernel.

> WSL9x runs a modern Linux kernel (6.19 at time of writing) cooperatively inside the Windows 9x kernel Pretty sure it's the other way around. But I haven't had my coffee yet ;) Microsoft's naming scheme confuses me every single time though: "Windows Subsystem for Linux" actually runs Linux on Windows...

You're correct: "WSL9x runs a modern Linux kernel (6.19 at time of writing) cooperatively inside the Windows 9x kernel"

I missed the part that it runs on the bloody Windows 9x kernel, I was to busy thinking about modern Windows.

Re: Windows 9x Subsystem for Linux

#100

Post by seritools »

mrweasel wrote: post #82
foldr wrote: post #65

Incredible that current Linux kernels still have 486 support!

Which is really weird because I thought it didn't, per https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/07/linux_kernel_drops_48... Maybe there's some detail I don't quite follow, like is has support for 486, but only those with a built in FPU?

pretty sure 486 support only _just_ got disabled, and will be gone with 7.1: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-7.1-Phasing-Out-i486
Post reply on HN