- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- linux@programming.dev
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:
I don’t understand this.
Does this mean Windows programs and exe files will now run natively on linux?
Edit: unclear why someone asking a question gets a 50/50 downvote to upvote response…
“OOOOHHHH!!! THIS GUY DOESN’T KNOW ALL THE THINGS I KNOW!!! BOOOOO!!!”
Yes, as long as your Linux distro is Windows.
In my view it’s a Linux subsystem for Windows.
Why the name is the other way around, I’ll never understand.
The original WSL doesn’t use the Linux kernel at all, it’s a Windows Subsystem for compatibility with Linux. WSL2 actually visualizes a complete Linux kernel, but the name stuck.
The original WSL DOES use the Linux kernel. Which runs as a native NT process (there’s a huge difference between NT and Win32 processes). But porting a Linux kernel into the NT binary is a maintenance nightmare, it’s much easier to run the original in a slim VM.
It’s a windows subsystem, and it runs linux.
Windows subsystem for (running) linux?
I guess the logic is that it’s a subsystem of Windows for the purpose of running Linux apps.
Agree though that it’s a confusing name. I remember thinking the same thing about Windows Subsystem for Android (the compatibility layer to run Android apps in Windows)
Not quite
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/about
Yeah the naming is absurdly stupid. Its a linux subsystem that is part of windows nowadays. Its so people on windows can get access to a proper terminal interface.
[Windows subsystem] for [executable environment] is the naming scheme. The default is Win32, there’s one for POSIX (practically never used), and Linux runs in another.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/41409419
Windows has a terminal interface already!
that thing is a glorified childs toy tho
You’re going to have to explain your reasoning here.
Why do you say that