You're viewing a single thread.
I can't be the only one, so WSL = Windows subsystem for Linux.
which, confusingly enough, is a linux subsystem under windows. The name sounds like the opposite.
Really just an English problem. Read it as it is a subsystem by Windows for Linux.
But yeah, LSW would've been more clear. Plus, it's almost LSD.
Linux Subsystem for DOS
Getting DOS within Linux would be pretty interesting to play with and may get my dad a step closer to abandon windows.
There is DOSBox but idk how well that works
LSD?
Yea
I think it makes more sense to read that it's a "Windows Subsystem for (running) Linux (applications/programs)".
Maybe it's some marketing thing? Like their feature MUST start with Windows™ regardless of getting confusing as hell, it may also help not techie people who make decisions and want to still use a Windows™ solution suggested by a techie
It should be Windows's Subsystem for Linux.
A better acronym might be Windows' Linux Subsystem.
WSL 1 is a compatibility layer that lets Linux programs run on the Windows kernel by translating Linux system calls to Windows system calls, so in that sense I understand the name: it’s a Windows subsystem for Linux [compatibility]. It doesn’t use the Linux kernel at all. With WSL 2 they’re using a real Linux kernel in a virtual machine, so there the name doesn’t make much sense anymore.
"Windows subsystem for Linux software" would probably have been a mouthful.
It's not really that ambiguous in practice. Linux doesn't have "subsystems", but Windows architecture calls them that. 64-bit Windows has a "subsystem" for 32-bit applications. And a separate "subsystem" for console applications (command line). Etc etc
Isn't it just Hyper-V with extra steps?
WSL2 is, but WSL1 implemented the Linux kernel API in NT, so ran things directly.