4 ms·

I specifically said NT APIs to differentiate from the Windows APIs. And my "just like WINE" comment was more to differentiate what they were doing with WSL1 fro

by ziml77 4y ago

I specifically said NT APIs to differentiate from the Windows APIs. And my "just like WINE" comment was more to differentiate what they were doing with WSL1 from WSL2. My use of "just like" is too strong there. And I also don't think any of the problems were insurmountable. I'm still disappointed that they gave up on WSL1. (At least partially because I thought the whole Windows Subsystem concept was neat design)

skissane 4y ago
> I specifically said NT APIs to differentiate from the Windows APIs. It depends on what you mean by "NT APIs". If you mean the NT API exposed to user-mode (NT syscalls), no, that is insufficient to implement WSL1 (or anything else like it). If you mean to include kernel-mode-only NT APIs (including undocumented/private APIs which MS doesn't expose to third parties, even new APIs added specifically for WSL1 to consume), then yes that is. > the whole Windows Subsystem concept was neat design Also worth keeping in mind, that WSL1 is not an "environment subsystem" in the sense that Win32 is – or OS/2 and POSIX/etc were. It has a radically different architecture from a classic Windows NT environment subsystem.
- ziml77 4y ago
  Ah my mistake about the subsystem implementation. My memory was fuzzy given the 5+ years since I read Windows Internals 7th Edition. Thanks for the correction!