4 ms·

Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?

by vrganj 7mo ago

nkrisc 7mo ago
It’s a sub-system of Windows that is used for Linux. It can work either way though.
hagbard_c 7mo ago
Microsoft names of products turn around likes, e.g. OpenOffice XML [1] -> Office Open XML [2] [1] https://www.openoffice.org/xml/general.html https://www.openoffice.org/xml/general.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML
adzm 7mo ago
(Windows 9x) (Subsystem for Linux)
win2k 7mo ago
Yeah, you'd think from this that it is running Linux on Windows 9x.
tjoff 7mo ago
If you google there are many reasonable reasons for it. But the most straight forward is: > Because we cannot name something leading with a trademark owned by someone else. https://xcancel.com/richturn_ms/status/1245481405947076610?s=20 https://xcancel.com/richturn_ms/status/1245481405947076610?s...
- ginko 7mo ago
  Should have called it LINE.
  - mghackerlady 7mo ago
    also trademarked
- collinmanderson 7mo ago
  > Because we cannot name something leading with a trademark owned by someone else. And this WSL project is going to run into the same problem.
Almondsetat 7mo ago
Windows' subsystem for Linux
Sharlin 7mo ago
"Windows subsystem" was an existing term of art on the NT architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture
Gravityloss 7mo ago
To reciprocate the naming of Wine, maybe it could have been named Line. Also, both have this positive clang, being associated with "having a good time".
jeroenhd 7mo ago
The core of the software is a subsystem, specifically a Windows subsystem; you're not running this subsystem on macOS or FreeBSD. The "for Linux" is added because it's a subsystem for Linux applications (originally not leveraging a VM). Microsoft also had the "Microsoft POSIX subsystem" (1993) and "Windows Services for UNIX" (1999) which were built on the "Subsystem for Unix-based Applications" (rather than "Unix-based Application Subsystem"). That chain of subsystems died at the end of Windows 8, though. There are many reasons not to put "Linux" in front, but the naming is consistent with Microsoft's naming inconsistencies. It's not the first time they used "subsystem for" and it's not the first time they used "Windows x for y" either. The naming is ambiguous, you could interpret the Windows subsystem for Linux as a subsystem of Linux (if it had such a thing) that runs Windows, or as a Windows subsystem for use with Linux. Swapping the order doesn't change that. In other languages, the difference would be clearer.
- vrganj 7mo ago
  To me, it sounds like a subsystem that provides Windows Compability for the Linux host. I do agree it's an issue of English being an imprecise language.
  - vehemenz 7mo ago
    No natural language is inherently imprecise. Every language has its own system to resolve vagueness or ambiguity and elaborate on the supposedly "missing" features of the language. This issue is relatively settled in linguistics.
  - rrgok 7mo ago
    Still a better language than other myriad of languages with uselessly complicated grammars and rules. And I'm not a native English speaker. And this is a poor example, because Microsoft wants to be Microsoft.
twsted 7mo ago
I always have the same problem myself. Same as I had with version naming of old programs like "Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0" instead of the easier "Microsoft Word 2.0 for Windows".
- toast0 7mo ago
  The problem is Word 2.0 for Dos was released in 1985, and Word for Windows 2.0 was released in 1991. Calling it Word 2.0 for Windows wouldn't make sense, because it wasn't the 1985 release with a new coat of paint, Word for Windows was its own thing, and this was the second version. Word for Mac was also separate, but eventually Word 6 was a common code base and it made sense to have Word 6.0 for [whatever]
smackeyacky 7mo ago
Other people already answered but windows was just another personality on the original idea that cutler had for WNT. It just took a while for it to get implemented as a linux
- jesuslop 7mo ago
  The Showstoppers book by G. Pascal Zachary is an entertaining account of NT uprising.
globular-toast 7mo ago
It's a dominance thing. Classic abuser behaviour.
electroly 6mo ago
My personal experience with our legal department on naming is that if your product name includes someone else's trademark, you have to say "Our Thing for Their Thing", exactly like that. I was involved in a product that did this, and we came up with some better names, but legal said no, it must be named with "for Their Thing" at the end. Those were the magic words so we don't get sued, and indeed, we weren't sued. Our legal was non-technical and never heard of WSL; they came to this conclusion independently. The name we shipped was even worse than Windows Subsystem for Linux, honestly. At least Microsoft spent some time on it.

Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?

by vrganj 7mo ago

Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?

nkrisc 7mo ago

It’s a sub-system of Windows that is used for Linux. It can work either way though.

hagbard_c 7mo ago

Microsoft names of products turn around likes, e.g. OpenOffice XML [1] -> Office Open XML [2] [1] https://www.openoffice.org/xml/general.html https://www.openoffice.org/xml/general.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML

adzm 7mo ago

(Windows 9x) (Subsystem for Linux)

win2k 7mo ago

Yeah, you'd think from this that it is running Linux on Windows 9x.

tjoff 7mo ago

If you google there are many reasonable reasons for it. But the most straight forward is: > Because we cannot name something leading with a trademark owned by someone else. https://xcancel.com/richturn_ms/status/1245481405947076610?s=20 https://xcancel.com/richturn_ms/status/1245481405947076610?s...

ginko 7mo ago
Should have called it LINE.
- mghackerlady 7mo ago
  also trademarked
collinmanderson 7mo ago
> Because we cannot name something leading with a trademark owned by someone else. And this WSL project is going to run into the same problem.

Almondsetat 7mo ago

Windows' subsystem for Linux

Sharlin 7mo ago

"Windows subsystem" was an existing term of art on the NT architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1#Architecture

Gravityloss 7mo ago

To reciprocate the naming of Wine, maybe it could have been named Line. Also, both have this positive clang, being associated with "having a good time".

jeroenhd 7mo ago

The core of the software is a subsystem, specifically a Windows subsystem; you're not running this subsystem on macOS or FreeBSD. The "for Linux" is added because it's a subsystem for Linux applications (originally not leveraging a VM). Microsoft also had the "Microsoft POSIX subsystem" (1993) and "Windows Services for UNIX" (1999) which were built on the "Subsystem for Unix-based Applications" (rather than "Unix-based Application Subsystem"). That chain of subsystems died at the end of Windows 8, though. There are many reasons not to put "Linux" in front, but the naming is consistent with Microsoft's naming inconsistencies. It's not the first time they used "subsystem for" and it's not the first time they used "Windows x for y" either. The naming is ambiguous, you could interpret the Windows subsystem for Linux as a subsystem of Linux (if it had such a thing) that runs Windows, or as a Windows subsystem for use with Linux. Swapping the order doesn't change that. In other languages, the difference would be clearer.

vrganj 7mo ago
To me, it sounds like a subsystem that provides Windows Compability for the Linux host. I do agree it's an issue of English being an imprecise language.
- vehemenz 7mo ago
  No natural language is inherently imprecise. Every language has its own system to resolve vagueness or ambiguity and elaborate on the supposedly "missing" features of the language. This issue is relatively settled in linguistics.
- rrgok 7mo ago
  Still a better language than other myriad of languages with uselessly complicated grammars and rules. And I'm not a native English speaker. And this is a poor example, because Microsoft wants to be Microsoft.

twsted 7mo ago

I always have the same problem myself. Same as I had with version naming of old programs like "Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0" instead of the easier "Microsoft Word 2.0 for Windows".

toast0 7mo ago
The problem is Word 2.0 for Dos was released in 1985, and Word for Windows 2.0 was released in 1991. Calling it Word 2.0 for Windows wouldn't make sense, because it wasn't the 1985 release with a new coat of paint, Word for Windows was its own thing, and this was the second version. Word for Mac was also separate, but eventually Word 6 was a common code base and it made sense to have Word 6.0 for [whatever]

smackeyacky 7mo ago

Other people already answered but windows was just another personality on the original idea that cutler had for WNT. It just took a while for it to get implemented as a linux

jesuslop 7mo ago
The Showstoppers book by G. Pascal Zachary is an entertaining account of NT uprising.

globular-toast 7mo ago

It's a dominance thing. Classic abuser behaviour.

electroly 6mo ago

My personal experience with our legal department on naming is that if your product name includes someone else's trademark, you have to say "Our Thing for Their Thing", exactly like that. I was involved in a product that did this, and we came up with some better names, but legal said no, it must be named with "for Their Thing" at the end. Those were the magic words so we don't get sued, and indeed, we weren't sued. Our legal was non-technical and never heard of WSL; they came to this conclusion independently. The name we shipped was even worse than Windows Subsystem for Linux, honestly. At least Microsoft spent some time on it.