Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayboise | Hacker News Reader

Always thought WSL was named backwards. This also.

"DOS Subsystem for Linux" sounds to me like something that runs a DOS environment in Linux. When it's actually the opposite.

View on HN

It's because Windows uses the concept of subsystems for lots of pieces of its architecture. If you look at a process listing, you'll see lots of processes named "*ss.exe", where the "ss" stands for subsystem, like lsass, csrss, smss, etc.

Also back in the day Windows supported POSIX as a subsystem and some others as well. Each one was considered a Windows subsystem for that specific architecture. And now that there's one for Linux, we get WSL.

So if I look these up I see:

- csrss: Client Server Runtime Subsystem

- smss: Session Manager Subsystem

and so on. It seems that WSL is indeed breaking convention, or else it would be something like lss or lxss for example.

LXSS is actually the name used in one of the kernel drivers and various other components. WSL is just the user-facing name.

Absolutely is. I think I remember reading the theory it was to do with MS naming it such that Windows came first, and Linux last, regardless how confusing.

I doubt it, considering UNIX services for Windows was a thing for a long time.

Wait wouldn't that have to be Windows subsystem for UNIX to be consistent with WSL?

You mean this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

I always wondered if OpenNT (Softway Systems) and Xenix folks had some overlap.

I mean, yeah, it's weird, but it makes sense if the 2nd noun is anything that isn't an OS.

Windows Subsystem for Audio, Windows Subsystem for Filesystems, etc

All of these still sound awkward. "Windows Audio Subsystem", or "Audio Subsystem for Windows" both sound better. The fact that it's an audio subsystem is more descriptive than the fact that it's a windows subsystem, so it sounds strange to group it the other way.

Apple iPhone vs iPhone for Apple. Microsoft Office vs Office for Microsoft. Google Chrome vs Chrome for Google. Corporations are reluctant to put "products" without their brand name first. And they intetpret "products" as literally anything anybody with a wallet can identify. WSL makes the list.

> Apple iPhone vs iPhone for Apple.

The equivalent of "Apple iPhone" is, in this case, "Windows Audio Subsystem". Not "Windows Subsystem for Audio".

It's unfortunate when marketing speak enters the domain of tools. Imagine if builders had to deal with this:

"Hey hank, grab me the Microsoft Screws(tm) for 3/4 inch holes"

Philips…

> Apple iPhone vs iPhone for Apple. Microsoft Office vs Office for Microsoft. Google Chrome vs Chrome for Google.

...none of those make any sense. Chrome isn't for Google. It's made and distributed by Google. iPhones aren't for Apple. Office isn't for Microsoft.

What were you trying to say?

In fairness, the Windows Subsystem isn't for Linux either.

Huh?

They probably mean that WSL was designed to promote Windows as “the best environment” to run Linux applications. (WSL1 did not even have Linux in it.)

I thought it was pretty clear.

Windows subsystem for Linux is a product. Just like Apple iPhone is a product. Just like Apple iCloud is a product. Nobody names their products with their company name at the end.

I wonder if they left out a few words. The Windows subsystem for using audio. The Windows subsystem for using graphics. The Windows subsystem for using modems. (I made those up…I think)

> The fact that it's an audio subsystem is more descriptive than the fact that it's a windows subsystem, so it sounds strange to group it the other way.

We say that English is "right-headed" for this reason - an audio subsystem is a kind of subsystem, not a kind of audio.

Interestingly, there are a few established words, derived from verbs, like kiss-ass or pickpocket which have things the wrong way around; the prediction from right-headedness would be pocket-picker.

Interesting - it makes me wonder if those words have origins in other languages or something.

Almost certainly not. For pickpocket we could say that it's an old word, and maybe English had a weaker preference for right-headedness when it arose. But that's more difficult for kiss-ass.

Ass-kisser also has the same meaning.

The dumb part is that they insist on including "Windows" in the name. What other subsytems would you have in Windows than Windows subsystems? The Windows part is implied. Otherwise it would not be a _sub_system, right? The only reason it is there is because some marketing idiot wanted more branding.

So the Linux subsystem should be called... Linux subsystem. Searching on Google would lead to type "linux subsystem for windows" and it would not be hard for Google to direct you to the right Microsoft website.

It could be a subsystem for any one of the programs that run on Windows. For example, if it were virtualized in the browser, it could be called "Edge Subsystem for Linux". With the name WSL, the fact that it's baked directly into the OS is clear.

> Edge Subsystem for Linux

Except that it isn't for Linux. So what you wrote implies that this is baked into an OS, but in fact it isn't.

It is extremely confusing.

It's a Windows subsystem. What's it for? Running Linux. It's a Windows subsystem for Linux.

>The dumb part is that they insist on including "Windows" in the name. What other subsytems would you have in Windows than Windows subsystems? The Windows part is implied. Otherwise it would not be a _sub_system, right? The only reason it is there is because some marketing idiot wanted more branding.

It's not dumb to them. Microsoft is not a tech company.

Microsoft is a marketing/sales company that happens to market and sell the software, services and hardware that the company makes.

It's cause it's a component in windows so it's "windows: subsystem for linux"

For is the most confusing word here. In most CS and product sense, 'for' means, well, intended for. Books for nerds. Language for newbies. The predicate is the audience. There's an entire 'for Dummies' line. Windows for Dummies is not...some dummy system of Windows.

Windows xSystem for Linux is not for Linux. It's for Windows.

Also it makes it sound like Linux is adopting Windows, not the other way around.

I bet it’s for legal reasons.

With “Linux Subsystem for Windows”, the owner of the Linux trademark could hypothetically sue Microsoft arguing that consumers could misinterpret the name as meaning a part of Linux, or an official Linux product.

“Windows Subsystem for Linux” unambiguously implies only that the software is compatible with Linux, not that it’s affiliated with it. (It still uses the trademark, but in a way that would be considered descriptive fair use.)

It’s not like there’s any real chance the trademark owner in question, the Linux Foundation, would actually sue Microsoft over this, but lawyers tend to prefer safe over sorry.

Then how do you explain "Rust for Windows"?

Same as "PHP for Windows", it's not a problem if the trademark owner agrees. And they typically would if the thing is the actual Rust / PHP running on Windows.

The problem with "Linux subsystem for Windows" is that the Linux people were not involved and the thing isn't a normal Linux. So there is much more risk of a trademark dispute in that case.

If I'm not mistaken, the "rust people" were not involved in "Rust for windows". It's just a normal rust crate which wraps the windows API, developed by Microsoft.

That's part of what makes this kind of naming so confusing. "Rust for Windows" sounds like some kind of development in the rust language in the direction of supporting windows, but it's just a library.

I can imagine a trademark holder taking issue with something like this. For instance, imagine the Ford auto compnay marketed their USB port, which you can plug an iPhone into, as "iPhone for Ford Trucks".

edit:

Look at the title in the Rust for Windows github: https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs

> Rust for the Windows SDK

What does that even mean? "Rust implementation of the Windows SDK API", or "Rust Wrapper for the Windows SDK" would make sense, but this phrasing is completely foreign to anyone doing software.

>the thing isn't a normal Linux.

Interestingly enough, WSL 1 did not contain Linux at all. WSL2 on the of other hand ships the Linux kernel.

That doesn't mean it's 100% compatible or 100% the Linux experience. There are still kinks in it, e.g. SBCL doesn't compile there.

Windows Linux Layer

I don't understand the confusion. I thought it was called WSL because WSL1 was just that - a Windows subsystem that acted as a sort of compatibility later for Linux. And then when they released WSL2 (which replaced the old model with a Hyper-V accelerated VM running Linux), there was no real reason to rename it and create confusion.

Really it just lacks a possessive apostrophe: Windows' Subsystem for Linux

Windows "provided" Subsystem "for" Linux. Meaning Windows, the platform, provides or hosts a subsystem that runs/hosts Linux.

Clickbait has made it's way into MS naming. I remember being filled with joy when reading the title of the Windows Subsystem for Linux announcement. You can imagine my disappointment and I was probably not alone.

English's spec doesn't really define precedence for operators vs. function arguments. Adding parentheses makes it clear: Windows (Subsystem for Linux) vs. (Windows Subsystem) for Linux.

I disagree that that makes it clear. Both of those sound like something that runs on Linux.

Playing devil's advocate, one could argue, especially in the case of WSL2, that it's a Windows subsystem that allows Linux to run particularly well by providing virtual devices etc which can be accessed from the Linux VM. It's a bit of a stretch, and Microsoft's true motivation for the naming is almost certainly different, but hey, an argument can be made ;)

If you replace "for" with "to run" and append "programs" then it works much better.

I assumed this was because they wanted “windows” to be before “linux” in the name, either just for marketing or to indicate that †he one is running beneath the other one — completely ignoring that it’s nonsensical.

From the title I thought this would be a tongue-in-cheek project, basing itself on the joke that no-one running Linux would actually prefer a DOS shell.

But it's not. This runs DOS in V8086 mode under Linux's supervision.

I joke that WSL1 should be named "Line"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com