We are still missing "Windows Subsystem for Copilot".
I guess they really just didn't want a product name to start with the name of a competitor's product. I bet Copilot can fix this...
WSL2 deviates from the native concept of what a Windows subsystem is; it is named that way because it is the successor of the original WSL.
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-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).
It is a Windows Subsystem, that caters to running Linux.
It’s a functional title not an architectural one.
Windows Subsystem for: LinuxI read through the brand guidelines where I work, and we have a similar stipulation. Maybe there is some law mixed in there, but from a pure branding play, a company will never want to put someone else first.
WSL2 runs real Linux in a virtual machine.
WSL 1.0 was based on Drawbridge research project of library OSes, also used to port SQL Server into Linux.
> DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, access, create, and/or modify Linux files inside of your `%LOCALAPPDATA%` folder using Windows apps, tools, scripts, consoles, etc.
They did overcome that problem eventually, but by then everyone had moved on to WSL2.
Even Linux best practices for SMB access have been as read only.
That's why Microsoft abandoned it in favor of WSL2 running real Linux in a VM.
What is this goal post moving? First the was file system access, then it became being unstable, what is going to be the next point?
Let me make it easier, WSL 1.0 did not support the syscalls for X Windows implementation.
If you can't touch the Linux files with Windows tools without corrupting them, your implementation is unstable.
WSL1 was unstable, unfit for purpose, and never worked properly.
It was abandoned in favor of just running real Linux in a VM.
You can't have ellipsis when the shortened version already has its own meaning.
X for Y when both X and Y are nouns means that X is part of Y, not that Y is part of X.
e.g. "I bought new tyres for my car". The tyres are part of my car. You can't flip it and say "I bought new my car for tyres", it's just not how the word "for" works.
Grammatically it has to be "Linux for Windows subsystem", or "Windows subsystem for running Linux" as you said. The verb is essential for it to parse correctly.
It’s a proper noun, there are no rules.
Only in version 2. WSL1 didn't run a Linux kernel, just provided binary compatibility to run Linux userspace programs.
Probably, but I doubt linux wants it either. People might think it's some official linux product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
Like an imperative, because copilot can exist as a verb, I copilot a plane, and Copilot can exist as a software product, and as a helper in a software product that is itself a software product that helps you use the software product it is a helper to
So Copilot copilot! could be an imperative for Copilot to Copilot, and Copilot Copilot could be a description of a software product that helps people use a software product named Copilot, but the second is not really grammatically correct as a sentence, whereas the imperative is.
So in the end I guess you could have a Copilot Copilot..[infinite Copilots]..copilot!
Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots, which other Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots assist, themselves assist Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots.
(Fun fact: If you repeat a word sufficiently, it will lose its meaning..)
I think I'll stick to that definition; I don't want to lose my mental image of the daft-looking little copilots roaming around the Inter-Andean valleys that their more menacing-looking ancestors once inhabited. Yeah, cute little things.
Too late. Microsoft already caused that to happen.