830
DiscussionChange my mind: Windows Subsystem for Linux should be Linux Subsystem for Windows(self.linux)
I'm serious. Isn't WSL essentially a Linux environment running on top of Windows, rather than a Wind...
3 months, 3 weeks ago
—
3 months, 4 weeks ago20 of 20
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
Perhaps the best way to look that the name is
Windows' subsystem for Linux (notice the apostrophe)
Wherein it's not a windows subsystem, but a subsystem within windows.
I do agree though, LSW would be clearer.
In my head it was LSW until some marketing people heard about it.
Quite possible. I can totally see some marketer going "Oh no, we can't start a name with Linux! It must be Windows! Linux can only come at the end!"
I've worked with enough marketing folks over the years - this is how they can tend to think. It seems rather petty and incorrect to me, but I'm on the dev/ops side of things, so my opinion isn't worth anything ;P
But the official naming doesn't have the apostrophe, but yes, helpful way to look at it
Not a native speaker, but doesn't it also work without?
"Windows subsystem" by itself I would read as "a subsystem of Windows". Then WSL is "A Windows subsystem for [running] Linux".
That said, I'd also find "Linux subsystem for Windows" more clear. This I would read as "A subsystem for running Linux, for use on Windows".
You're correct that it works without the apostrophe, but it's more ambiguous that way. It could mean that it's a subsystem on Windows meant to run Linux, or that it's the subsystem running Windows, for Linux. Adding the apostrophe is a small change that removes the ambiguity by assigning ownership
Bingo
Indeed, It is actually a piece of windows software (so a windows subsystem) that provides services that allow you to integrate a hyper-v vm running linux into your windows environment.
WSL is not the Linux system, You run Linux on top of it.
The current name is completely correct and the name OP suggest is actually inaccurate.
Except it was like that at launch time. There used to be no VM involved...
Yeah for WSL1 you could argue LSW would be more accurate since it adds a layer to translate Linux kernel calls to windows kernel calls and you actually never need Linux (the kernel) just a userland.
For WSL2, WSL is perfectly accurate and LSW would be wrong.
It was pointed out to me that WSL1 is still available, but for most use cases you'll want WSL2 for the much better compatibility.
Yes, that's true. WSL1 was a much harder effort and would have been an endless cat and mouse game, with WSL always lagging behind the real Linux kernel, so they ended up settling for this much more "boring" approach.
One thing I don't like about this is the fact they sometimes say WSL2 is much better than a virtual machine, as if it wasn't the exact same thing underneath. I mean, it works and it's quite convenient, but a lot of people still think it's some sort of "compatibility layer".
I think if they were going to rename it, it shouldn't be overly complicated.
Like Crostini or crosvm on Android.
Probably not something silly like Birdfeeder though. Even though I think the idea of someone sitting watching a penguin OS through their windows makes it funny.
Yeah, I've always thought of it as a subsystem within windows for Linux to run.
WSL is backwards of LSW so of course that’s what Microsoft chose.
But if it was LSW then I couldn't call it a fun name like "Wizzle" :(
Wizzle is excellent (and how I pronounce it), but may I present for your consideration "lizzoo"
even if it was like that, the word "for" doesn't fit. it isn't "for" Linux, it just "is" Linux.
Exactly it's either Window's Linux Subsystem or Linux Subsystem for Windows.