7 ms·

EDIT: I stand corrected. A closer look at TFA confirmed that it is indeed DSL. I was confused by the screenshot which at first glance just shows DOS running in

EDIT: I stand corrected. A closer look at TFA confirmed that it is indeed DSL. I was confused by the screenshot which at first glance just shows DOS running in QEMU on Linux. But it goes deeper! Yes, that is correct. Windows Subsystem for Linux means it's one of Windows' subsystems which provides linux. This should be called Linux Subsystem for DOS.

detaro 6y ago
This is a thing you execute under DOS to run linux commands. it provides Linux. (or at least pretends to do it that way around)
- jayd16 6y ago
  Windows subsystem for Linux is a thing you execute under Windows to run linux commands. It provides Linux. So what's different?
  - plus 6y ago
    This one runs on DOS.
    - jayd16 6y ago
      Right, but I mean naming wise, shouldn't it indeed be DOS Subsystem for Linux? E: Ah I see, I misinterpreted the comment chain depth. Thanks all.
      - plus 6y ago
        Yes, it should be DOS Subsystem for Linux. It also is DOS Subsystem for Linux.
      - detaro 6y ago
        right, and the comment I replied to said it should be the other way around, so I pointed out (what I assumed to be) their point of misunderstanding.
- hunter2_ 6y ago
  Misunderstandings aside (I am fully up to speed on that), why do this and WSL each use "for" to mean "provides"? In most software contexts, the noun after the word "for" is the thing you already had, like "Word for Windows" et al.
  - detaro 6y ago
    I assume this uses it purely to make fun of Windows. Windows has the concept of subsystems - technically the Win32 API is also just a subsystem around the NT kernel that provides the "Windows API". Windows NT also had one providing an OS/2 API, and one providing POSIX API - the latter later evolved into/was replaced by "Windows Services for UNIX" - assume there and with WSL the intent is to read it as "for Linux/UNIX applications". But why specifically this confusion phrasing is unclear, maybe they wanted to keep the "Windows" brand attached to the thing - i.e. treat "Windows Subsystem" and "Windows Services" as one term?

detaro 6y ago

This is a thing you execute under DOS to run linux commands. it provides Linux. (or at least pretends to do it that way around)

jayd16 6y ago
Windows subsystem for Linux is a thing you execute under Windows to run linux commands. It provides Linux. So what's different?
- plus 6y ago
  This one runs on DOS.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    Right, but I mean naming wise, shouldn't it indeed be DOS Subsystem for Linux? E: Ah I see, I misinterpreted the comment chain depth. Thanks all.
    - plus 6y ago
      Yes, it should be DOS Subsystem for Linux. It also is DOS Subsystem for Linux.
    - detaro 6y ago
      right, and the comment I replied to said it should be the other way around, so I pointed out (what I assumed to be) their point of misunderstanding.
hunter2_ 6y ago
Misunderstandings aside (I am fully up to speed on that), why do this and WSL each use "for" to mean "provides"? In most software contexts, the noun after the word "for" is the thing you already had, like "Word for Windows" et al.
- detaro 6y ago
  I assume this uses it purely to make fun of Windows. Windows has the concept of subsystems - technically the Win32 API is also just a subsystem around the NT kernel that provides the "Windows API". Windows NT also had one providing an OS/2 API, and one providing POSIX API - the latter later evolved into/was replaced by "Windows Services for UNIX" - assume there and with WSL the intent is to read it as "for Linux/UNIX applications". But why specifically this confusion phrasing is unclear, maybe they wanted to keep the "Windows" brand attached to the thing - i.e. treat "Windows Subsystem" and "Windows Services" as one term?