3 ms·
Yes. It's using the same naming as WSL which always confused me: Q: Why the same naming scheme as WSL? A: It's a proof of concept name only. If I
by andybak 4y ago
Yes. It's using the same naming as WSL which always confused me:
Q: Why the same naming scheme as WSL?
A: It's a proof of concept name only.
If I were to distribute this as a finished piece of
software, which I probably won't (see why below) I would
choose a different name.
- unsafecast 4y agoIt's not confusing once you know where it came from. The NT kernel has a concept called “environment subsystems”. Win32 was, until WSL1, the only one used (a long time ago there was SFU, the grandfather of WSL). So WSL is a Windows subsystem made for Linux. Hence the name. Note that WSL2 isn't an NT subsystem, they're just using an actual kernel now. The name stuck though.
- tzs 4y agoThe original NT subsystems were for OS/2, POSIX, and Win32 and were called simply the "OS/2 Subsystem", "POSIX Subsystem", and "Win32 Subsystem". If they had stuck with the sensible NT naming convention, WLS would have simply been the Linux Subsystem.
- unsafecast 4y agoFair point. I was just arguing that it technically makes sense. The naming thing kind of started with SFU though.