5 ms·

Dumb question: Why did they name this "Subsystem for Linux"? (Old name was Interix, subsystem for UNIX-based applications, or "SUA".) Does marketing/users bel

by gwu78 10y ago

Dumb question: Why did they name this "Subsystem for Linux"? (Old name was Interix, subsystem for UNIX-based applications, or "SUA".) Does marketing/users believe there is a distinction between Linux as a kernel and GNU as a source for a userland? Irrelevant? Curious what others think.

WorldMaker 10y ago
The big difference is that it isn't just POSIX compatible, it is a full out "bug-for-bug" emulation of the Linux kernel specifically with an eye towards binary compatibility. Out of the box, the userland here isn't just GNU, it is entirely the same binaries as shipped by Canonical in Ubuntu. Old Interix required retargeting and recompiling binaries, similar to how you would need to recompile to target the differences between Linux and BSD. WSL runs Linux binaries without the need to retarget or recompile specifically for Windows. This also means that the long tail ecosystem of Ubuntu PPAs and custom binary download sites all mostly work, too.
- Rayearth 10y ago
  >the userland here isn't just GNU Ah okay. Shame that calling this "GNU/NT 10.0" would not be proper then.
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    There's still enough GNU there that you could call it that if that amuses you to do so. (Though I bet RMS will happily throw a fit in your direction if you do. ;)
  - bgrainger 10y ago
    It’s “GNU\NT 10.0”.
    - mycall 10y ago
      GNU\Linux\NT 10.0
shmerl 10y ago
Yeah, the name is pretty misleading. I first thought it's about MS making something to run on Linux. It's not.
nxc18 10y ago
The old stuff provided source-level compatibility with UNIX via posix compliance. The Subsystem for Linux is essentially an implementation of the Linux ABI, which is distinct from UNIX and provides true binary compatibility. The ironic thing is that WSL itself is deliberately not Linux; the only similarity is the user-space ABI. Unfortunately, I've met very few developers (admittedly interacting mostly with students) who have any understanding of what is Linux vs. GNU utilities vs. UNIX, vs. Ubuntu. "macOS is basically Linux right? Its because of the Terminal". screams
bitwize 10y ago
Agreed. The name is backasswards; it should be "Linux Subsystem for Windows".
- bitcrazed 10y ago
  Can't lead with someone else's trademarked product name. You'd be amazed how complex and difficult product naming can be ;) Just be glad we didn't call it WSRPGLCB - Windows Subsystem for Running POSIX, GNU and Linux Compatible Binaries ;)

by gwu78 10y ago

WorldMaker 10y ago

The big difference is that it isn't just POSIX compatible, it is a full out "bug-for-bug" emulation of the Linux kernel specifically with an eye towards binary compatibility. Out of the box, the userland here isn't just GNU, it is entirely the same binaries as shipped by Canonical in Ubuntu. Old Interix required retargeting and recompiling binaries, similar to how you would need to recompile to target the differences between Linux and BSD. WSL runs Linux binaries without the need to retarget or recompile specifically for Windows. This also means that the long tail ecosystem of Ubuntu PPAs and custom binary download sites all mostly work, too.

Rayearth 10y ago
>the userland here isn't just GNU Ah okay. Shame that calling this "GNU/NT 10.0" would not be proper then.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  There's still enough GNU there that you could call it that if that amuses you to do so. (Though I bet RMS will happily throw a fit in your direction if you do. ;)
- bgrainger 10y ago
  It’s “GNU\NT 10.0”.
  - mycall 10y ago
    GNU\Linux\NT 10.0

shmerl 10y ago

Yeah, the name is pretty misleading. I first thought it's about MS making something to run on Linux. It's not.

nxc18 10y ago

The old stuff provided source-level compatibility with UNIX via posix compliance. The Subsystem for Linux is essentially an implementation of the Linux ABI, which is distinct from UNIX and provides true binary compatibility. The ironic thing is that WSL itself is deliberately not Linux; the only similarity is the user-space ABI. Unfortunately, I've met very few developers (admittedly interacting mostly with students) who have any understanding of what is Linux vs. GNU utilities vs. UNIX, vs. Ubuntu. "macOS is basically Linux right? Its because of the Terminal". screams

bitwize 10y ago

Agreed. The name is backasswards; it should be "Linux Subsystem for Windows".

bitcrazed 10y ago
Can't lead with someone else's trademarked product name. You'd be amazed how complex and difficult product naming can be ;) Just be glad we didn't call it WSRPGLCB - Windows Subsystem for Running POSIX, GNU and Linux Compatible Binaries ;)