Today we’re very excited to announce the open-source release of the Windows Subsystem for Linux. This is the result of a multiyear effort to prepare for this, and a great closure to the first ever issue raised on the Microsoft/WSL repo:
No, Windows has various subsystems. This one is for Linux.
When Windows NT 3.5 launched, it came with subsystems for POSIX, OS/2, and Win32 because in the WinNT world even the Windows frameworks are a subsystem. Disclaimer: I didn’t check if in Win11 this is still the case but I guess so.
It’s a subsystem of Windows. Therefore, a Windows Subsystem. I don’t know what else would make sense. A “subsystem of Linux for Windows” wouldn’t make sense. They don’t call their other features “Notepad for Windows” or “Defender for Windows.”
@randomcruft@fakeplastic I’m not real comfortable with my data on someone else’s computer, but triply so if that somebody is Microsoft, Gargoyle, or Amazon.
If I say “the life support system for the USS Enterprise”, nobody thinks that that’s a system running on the life support that gives you the USS Enterprise. It’s a system running on the USS Enterprise that gives you life support. Windows Subsystem for Linux sounds like it’s a system running on Linux that gives you access to Windows.
If I say “the life support system for the USS Enterprise”,
Unfortunately contact mean that example dose work both ways.
If we say enterprise system for life support. People will also understand.
But voyager system for enterprise could apply either way. To be fitted to enterprise or allow enterprise activity on voyager. Or voyager activity on enterprise. For is just bad language in this context.
Here Microsoft should’ve used a possessive. Voyagers enterprise support system would be more normal.
Or Windows Linux support system.
But marketing and a history of no other OS matters means Mickey$oft insists on it’s own layout. Over language clarity.
This depends entirely of what you mean by “of Windows” and what you mean by “for Linux”. This terminology is ambiguous.
Are you a Lemmy user for lemmy.world, or are you a lemmy.world user for Lemmy?
It’s also inconsistent because when they say, for example, “Microsoft Azure Linux Container Host for AKS”, they are talking about running a Microsoft Azure Linux Container inside of AKS, not a container that is meant to be used for running AKS within it…
When Windows NT was new, they had this idea that it would be compatible with many different application ecosystems via “sub-systems”. So there were going to be many different “Windows sub-systems” for various things.
There was the “Windows sub-system for OS/2” for example. And the “Windows sub-system for POSIX”. The names still sound backwards to me but I guess it makes sense if you think “This is a Windows sub-system, which one is it?”. And if you have 50 Windows sub-systems, saying “for Windows” at the end of all of them also seems a little weird.
So that naming convention was already in place when they added support for Linux. Hence the “Windows Subsystem for Linux”.
Microsoft really has a knack for that. I also like WoW64, which contains the binaries for running 32 bit applications on Windows 64 bit. For historical reasons, the 64 bit binaries live in system32, obviously.
They already had WoW (Windows on Windows) which was Win16 on Win32. The new one is Win32 on Win64.
And if say “Windows on Windows 64” it makes sense. It is Windows emulation on top of Windows 64 (64 bit Windows). When they named it, all Windows was 32 bit Windows and 64 bit Windows was the future thing. So “emulating current Windows on Win64” was what WoW64 was doing.
I wish they’d open source the name.
It should be called the “Linux Subsystem for Windows”.
There you can see that only drunks work at Microaoft.
This is actually due to trademark/copyright.
The first thing can’t be Linux due to that
However I agree.
No, Windows has various subsystems. This one is for Linux.
When Windows NT 3.5 launched, it came with subsystems for POSIX, OS/2, and Win32 because in the WinNT world even the Windows frameworks are a subsystem. Disclaimer: I didn’t check if in Win11 this is still the case but I guess so.
It’s a subsystem of Windows. Therefore, a Windows Subsystem. I don’t know what else would make sense. A “subsystem of Linux for Windows” wouldn’t make sense. They don’t call their other features “Notepad for Windows” or “Defender for Windows.”
On Windows MS may not call it Defender for Windows… but for Azure, it’s Defender for Cloud, Defender for Containers, Defender for SQL Databases, etc.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud overview
So really it’s just more of Microsoft’s generally crappy naming conventions… I’m looking at you Entra ID!!
edit: added link
🙂
@randomcruft @fakeplastic I’m not real comfortable with my data on someone else’s computer, but triply so if that somebody is Microsoft, Gargoyle, or Amazon.
Does ‘Notepad subsystem for Linux’ sound to you like a Windows or Linux subsystem?
It sounds like a subsystem of notepad because that’s the word used as the modifier.
If I say “the life support system for the USS Enterprise”, nobody thinks that that’s a system running on the life support that gives you the USS Enterprise. It’s a system running on the USS Enterprise that gives you life support. Windows Subsystem for Linux sounds like it’s a system running on Linux that gives you access to Windows.
Unfortunately contact mean that example dose work both ways.
If we say enterprise system for life support. People will also understand.
But voyager system for enterprise could apply either way. To be fitted to enterprise or allow enterprise activity on voyager. Or voyager activity on enterprise. For is just bad language in this context.
Here Microsoft should’ve used a possessive. Voyagers enterprise support system would be more normal.
Or Windows Linux support system.
But marketing and a history of no other OS matters means Mickey$oft insists on it’s own layout. Over language clarity.
This depends entirely of what you mean by “of Windows” and what you mean by “for Linux”. This terminology is ambiguous.
Are you a Lemmy user for lemmy.world, or are you a lemmy.world user for Lemmy?
It’s also inconsistent because when they say, for example, “Microsoft Azure Linux Container Host for AKS”, they are talking about running a Microsoft Azure Linux Container inside of AKS, not a container that is meant to be used for running AKS within it…
You say “The Windows Memory Subsystem” not “The Windows Subsystem for Memory”.
Windows Linux Subsystem would likely be most clear.
I totally agree it is wrong. It is historical.
When Windows NT was new, they had this idea that it would be compatible with many different application ecosystems via “sub-systems”. So there were going to be many different “Windows sub-systems” for various things.
There was the “Windows sub-system for OS/2” for example. And the “Windows sub-system for POSIX”. The names still sound backwards to me but I guess it makes sense if you think “This is a Windows sub-system, which one is it?”. And if you have 50 Windows sub-systems, saying “for Windows” at the end of all of them also seems a little weird.
So that naming convention was already in place when they added support for Linux. Hence the “Windows Subsystem for Linux”.
It’s so annoying, because both are technically grammatically correct, but the current one just sounds the opposite
Microsoft really has a knack for that. I also like
WoW64, which contains the binaries for running 32 bit applications on Windows 64 bit. For historical reasons, the 64 bit binaries live insystem32, obviously.Again, it is because it is part of a series.
They already had WoW (Windows on Windows) which was Win16 on Win32. The new one is Win32 on Win64.
And if say “Windows on Windows 64” it makes sense. It is Windows emulation on top of Windows 64 (64 bit Windows). When they named it, all Windows was 32 bit Windows and 64 bit Windows was the future thing. So “emulating current Windows on Win64” was what WoW64 was doing.
It did not age well though. I agree.