Waffelson@lemmy.world to linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 7 months agoMoney has changed microsoftlemmy.worldimagemessage-square71fedilinkarrow-up1372arrow-down137
arrow-up1335arrow-down1imageMoney has changed microsoftlemmy.worldWaffelson@lemmy.world to linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 7 months agomessage-square71fedilink
minus-squarePotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up49·7 months agowhich, confusingly enough, is a linux subsystem under windows. The name sounds like the opposite.
minus-squarexlash123@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up8·7 months agoReally just an English problem. Read it as it is a subsystem by Windows for Linux. But yeah, LSW would’ve been more clear. Plus, it’s almost LSD.
minus-squaremexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·7 months agoLinux Subsystem for DOS
minus-squarewebghost0101@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·7 months agoGetting DOS within Linux would be pretty interesting to play with and may get my dad a step closer to abandon windows.
minus-squaremexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·7 months agoThere is DOSBox but idk how well that works
minus-squarenotTheCat@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·7 months agoMaybe it’s some marketing thing? Like their feature MUST start with Windows™ regardless of getting confusing as hell, it may also help not techie people who make decisions and want to still use a Windows™ solution suggested by a techie
minus-squareGreenSkree@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·7 months agoI think it makes more sense to read that it’s a “Windows Subsystem for (running) Linux (applications/programs)”.
minus-squareCaptain Aggravated@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·7 months agoIt should be Windows’s Subsystem for Linux. A better acronym might be Windows’ Linux Subsystem.
minus-squarertxn@lemmy.worldMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·7 months agoIsn’t it just Hyper-V with extra steps?
minus-squareAnyOldName3@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·7 months agoWSL2 is, but WSL1 implemented the Linux kernel API in NT, so ran things directly.
which, confusingly enough, is a linux subsystem under windows. The name sounds like the opposite.
Really just an English problem. Read it as it is a subsystem by Windows for Linux.
But yeah, LSW would’ve been more clear. Plus, it’s almost LSD.
Linux Subsystem for DOS
Getting DOS within Linux would be pretty interesting to play with and may get my dad a step closer to abandon windows.
There is DOSBox but idk how well that works
deleted by creator
Maybe it’s some marketing thing? Like their feature MUST start with Windows™ regardless of getting confusing as hell, it may also help not techie people who make decisions and want to still use a Windows™ solution suggested by a techie
I think it makes more sense to read that it’s a “Windows Subsystem for (running) Linux (applications/programs)”.
It should be Windows’s Subsystem for Linux.
A better acronym might be Windows’ Linux Subsystem.
deleted by creator
Isn’t it just Hyper-V with extra steps?
WSL2 is, but WSL1 implemented the Linux kernel API in NT, so ran things directly.