8 ms·
Always thought WSL was named backwards. This also. "DOS Subsystem for Linux" sounds to me like something that runs a DOS environment in Linux. When it's actual
by throwawayboise 5y ago
Always thought WSL was named backwards. This also.
"DOS Subsystem for Linux" sounds to me like something that runs a DOS environment in Linux. When it's actually the opposite.
- silisili 5y agoAbsolutely is. I think I remember reading the theory it was to do with MS naming it such that Windows came first, and Linux last, regardless how confusing.
- easton 5y agoI doubt it, considering UNIX services for Windows was a thing for a long time.
- paulryanrogers 5y agoWait wouldn't that have to be Windows subsystem for UNIX to be consistent with WSL?
- silisili 5y agoYou mean this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
- mycall 5y agoI always wondered if OpenNT (Softway Systems) and Xenix folks had some overlap.
- TylerE 5y agoI mean, yeah, it's weird, but it makes sense if the 2nd noun is anything that isn't an OS. Windows Subsystem for Audio, Windows Subsystem for Filesystems, etc
- skohan 5y agoAll of these still sound awkward. "Windows Audio Subsystem", or "Audio Subsystem for Windows" both sound better. The fact that it's an audio subsystem is more descriptive than the fact that it's a windows subsystem, so it sounds strange to group it the other way.
- will4274 5y agoApple iPhone vs iPhone for Apple. Microsoft Office vs Office for Microsoft. Google Chrome vs Chrome for Google. Corporations are reluctant to put "products" without their brand name first. And they intetpret "products" as literally anything anybody with a wallet can identify. WSL makes the list.
- jfrunyon 5y ago> Apple iPhone vs iPhone for Apple. The equivalent of "Apple iPhone" is, in this case, "Windows Audio Subsystem". Not "Windows Subsystem for Audio".
- skohan 5y agoIt's unfortunate when marketing speak enters the domain of tools. Imagine if builders had to deal with this: "Hey hank, grab me the Microsoft Screws(tm) for 3/4 inch holes"
- einherjae 5y agoPhilips…
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> Apple iPhone vs iPhone for Apple. Microsoft Office vs Office for Microsoft. Google Chrome vs Chrome for Google. ...none of those make any sense. Chrome isn't for Google. It's made and distributed by Google. iPhones aren't for Apple. Office isn't for Microsoft. What were you trying to say?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 0x0nyandesu 5y agoIt's cause it's a component in windows so it's "windows: subsystem for linux"
- silisili 5y agoFor is the most confusing word here. In most CS and product sense, 'for' means, well, intended for. Books for nerds. Language for newbies. The predicate is the audience. There's an entire 'for Dummies' line. Windows for Dummies is not...some dummy system of Windows. Windows xSystem for Linux is not for Linux. It's for Windows.
- skohan 5y agoAlso it makes it sound like Linux is adopting Windows, not the other way around.
- comex 5y agoI bet it’s for legal reasons. With “Linux Subsystem for Windows”, the owner of the Linux trademark could hypothetically sue Microsoft arguing that consumers could misinterpret the name as meaning a part of Linux, or an official Linux product. “Windows Subsystem for Linux” unambiguously implies only that the software is compatible with Linux, not that it’s affiliated with it. (It still uses the trademark, but in a way that would be considered descriptive fair use.) It’s not like there’s any real chance the trademark owner in question, the Linux Foundation, would actually sue Microsoft over this, but lawyers tend to prefer safe over sorry.
- skohan 5y agoThen how do you explain "Rust for Windows"?
- t0mas88 5y agoSame as "PHP for Windows", it's not a problem if the trademark owner agrees. And they typically would if the thing is the actual Rust / PHP running on Windows. The problem with "Linux subsystem for Windows" is that the Linux people were not involved and the thing isn't a normal Linux. So there is much more risk of a trademark dispute in that case.
- skohan 5y agoIf I'm not mistaken, the "rust people" were not involved in "Rust for windows". It's just a normal rust crate which wraps the windows API, developed by Microsoft. That's part of what makes this kind of naming so confusing. "Rust for Windows" sounds like some kind of development in the rust language in the direction of supporting windows, but it's just a library. I can imagine a trademark holder taking issue with something like this. For instance, imagine the Ford auto compnay marketed their USB port, which you can plug an iPhone into, as "iPhone for Ford Trucks". edit: Look at the title in the Rust for Windows github: https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs > Rust for the Windows SDK What does that even mean? "Rust implementation of the Windows SDK API", or "Rust Wrapper for the Windows SDK" would make sense, but this phrasing is completely foreign to anyone doing software.
- HappyTypist 5y agoWindows Linux Layer
- hyperupcall 5y agoI don't understand the confusion. I thought it was called WSL because WSL1 was just that - a Windows subsystem that acted as a sort of compatibility later for Linux. And then when they released WSL2 (which replaced the old model with a Hyper-V accelerated VM running Linux), there was no real reason to rename it and create confusion.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- adzm 5y agoReally it just lacks a possessive apostrophe: Windows' Subsystem for Linux
- ssklash 5y agoIt's because Windows uses the concept of subsystems for lots of pieces of its architecture. If you look at a process listing, you'll see lots of processes named "*ss.exe", where the "ss" stands for subsystem, like lsass, csrss, smss, etc. Also back in the day Windows supported POSIX as a subsystem and some others as well. Each one was considered a Windows subsystem for that specific architecture. And now that there's one for Linux, we get WSL.
- skohan 5y agoSo if I look these up I see: - csrss: Client Server Runtime Subsystem - smss: Session Manager Subsystem and so on. It seems that WSL is indeed breaking convention, or else it would be something like lss or lxss for example.
- raptorfactor 5y agoLXSS is actually the name used in one of the kernel drivers and various other components. WSL is just the user-facing name.
- sterlind 5y agoEnglish's spec doesn't really define precedence for operators vs. function arguments. Adding parentheses makes it clear: Windows (Subsystem for Linux) vs. (Windows Subsystem) for Linux.
- jfrunyon 5y agoI disagree that that makes it clear. Both of those sound like something that runs on Linux.
- atq2119 5y agoPlaying devil's advocate, one could argue, especially in the case of WSL2, that it's a Windows subsystem that allows Linux to run particularly well by providing virtual devices etc which can be accessed from the Linux VM. It's a bit of a stretch, and Microsoft's true motivation for the naming is almost certainly different, but hey, an argument can be made ;)
- lom 5y agoI assumed this was because they wanted “windows” to be before “linux” in the name, either just for marketing or to indicate that †he one is running beneath the other one — completely ignoring that it’s nonsensical.
- pwdisswordfish8 5y agoBut it's not. This runs DOS in V8086 mode under Linux's supervision.
- pabs3 5y agoIf you replace "for" with "to run" and append "programs" then it works much better.
- dncornholio 5y agoClickbait has made it's way into MS naming. I remember being filled with joy when reading the title of the Windows Subsystem for Linux announcement. You can imagine my disappointment and I was probably not alone.
- jayceedenton 5y agoFrom the title I thought this would be a tongue-in-cheek project, basing itself on the joke that no-one running Linux would actually prefer a DOS shell.
- deesep 5y agoWindows "provided" Subsystem "for" Linux. Meaning Windows, the platform, provides or hosts a subsystem that runs/hosts Linux.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- garaetjjte 5y agoI joke that WSL1 should be named "Line"