4 ms·

I believe you're almost entirely wrong unfortunately. It is true that Windows has subsystems as a technical feature, yes. However, I don't think it's true that

I believe you're almost entirely wrong unfortunately. It is true that Windows has subsystems as a technical feature, yes. However, I don't think it's true that WSL (v1, let alone v2) was part of that architecture, despite the name. AFAIK that existing subsystem notion was a user-mode one, where each subsystem was built mostly in user-mode on top of the NT ("native") subsystem, with binaries in the PE format. WSL just completely ignored the whole thing, and even the existing notion of processes, and came up with a separate new thing called "picoprocesses" that it (barely?) wired through some critical kernel components via a custom driver that executed Linux binaries intact, implementing the Linux syscalls. If you want a list of actual subsystems Windows recognizes, this should be pretty accurate: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-format#windows-subsystem https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-for... The real reason for calling it a subsystem was almost entirely for familiarity with the previous concept of running Linux programs on Windows, which were based on that subsystem feature (the POSIX subsystem and the Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications).

lxgr 6mo ago
That doesn't seem like a contradiction to the idea that "Windows subsystem" is (at least after WSL 1 and especially 2) a description for a functionality (i.e. running binaries targeting a different OS's interfaces), not an implementation.
- dataflow 6mo ago
  No, as I explained, that's not what the actual subsystem architecture did. The binaries very much targeted Windows and did not target any other OSes. They weren't (say) ELF files targeting Linux, they were PE files targeting Windows, and you had to compile them from source with special flags to target those subsystems on Windows. You could not run those binaries on other OSes. The compatibility was at the source level, not at the binary level.
rusk 6mo ago
It needs an apostrophe then it makes more sense “Windows’ Subsystem for Linux” It is a Windows Subsystem, that caters to running Linux. It’s a functional title not an architectural one.
- Jenk 6mo ago
  Or a colon: Windows Subsystem for: Linux
- 1718627440 6mo ago
  Subsystem isn't used as a random English word here, "Windows Subsystem" is already a fixed term. So you wouldn't introduce a possessive relation into the term when using it.
  - rusk 6mo ago
    Indeed, I was trying to make it easier for you.

lxgr 6mo ago

That doesn't seem like a contradiction to the idea that "Windows subsystem" is (at least after WSL 1 and especially 2) a description for a functionality (i.e. running binaries targeting a different OS's interfaces), not an implementation.

dataflow 6mo ago
No, as I explained, that's not what the actual subsystem architecture did. The binaries very much targeted Windows and did not target any other OSes. They weren't (say) ELF files targeting Linux, they were PE files targeting Windows, and you had to compile them from source with special flags to target those subsystems on Windows. You could not run those binaries on other OSes. The compatibility was at the source level, not at the binary level.

rusk 6mo ago

It needs an apostrophe then it makes more sense “Windows’ Subsystem for Linux” It is a Windows Subsystem, that caters to running Linux. It’s a functional title not an architectural one.

Jenk 6mo ago
Or a colon: Windows Subsystem for: Linux
1718627440 6mo ago
Subsystem isn't used as a random English word here, "Windows Subsystem" is already a fixed term. So you wouldn't introduce a possessive relation into the term when using it.
- rusk 6mo ago
  Indeed, I was trying to make it easier for you.