“ I still hope to see a true "Windows Subsystem for Linux" by Microsoft or a windows becoming a linux distribution itself and dropping the NT kernel to legacy.
Windows is currently overloaded with features and does lack a package manager to only get what you need...”
IBM marketed "OS/2 for Windows" which made it sound like a compatibility layer to make Windows behave like OS/2. In truth it was the OS/2 operating system with drivers and conversion tools that made it easier for people who were used to Windows.
Untrue. OS/2 for windows leveraged the user’s existing copy of windows for os/2’s compatibility function instead of relying on a bundled copy of windows, like the “full”
Os/2 version.
Os/2 basically ran a copy of windows (either the existing one or bundled one) to then execute windows programs side by side with os/2 (and DOS) software.
It was previously called the Windows Subsystem for Android before it pivoted. It had a spiritual predecessor called Windows Services for UNIX. I doubt the name had been chosen for the reasons you say, considering the history.
That said, to address the grandparent comment’s point, it probably should be read as “Windows Subsystem for Linux (Applications)”.
That's not what I say, that's what the former PM Lead of WSL said. To be fair, Windows Services for UNIX was just Unix services for Windows. Probably the same logic applied there back then: they couldn't name it with a leading trademark (Unix), so they went with what was available.
philshem|9 months ago
https://xcancel.com/richturn_ms/status/1245481405947076610?s...
tacker2000|9 months ago
“ I still hope to see a true "Windows Subsystem for Linux" by Microsoft or a windows becoming a linux distribution itself and dropping the NT kernel to legacy. Windows is currently overloaded with features and does lack a package manager to only get what you need...”
whoopdedo|9 months ago
loloquwowndueo|9 months ago
Os/2 basically ran a copy of windows (either the existing one or bundled one) to then execute windows programs side by side with os/2 (and DOS) software.
ryao|9 months ago
That said, to address the grandparent comment’s point, it probably should be read as “Windows Subsystem for Linux (Applications)”.
avestura|9 months ago
That's not what I say, that's what the former PM Lead of WSL said. To be fair, Windows Services for UNIX was just Unix services for Windows. Probably the same logic applied there back then: they couldn't name it with a leading trademark (Unix), so they went with what was available.
naikrovek|9 months ago
WSA and WSL both coexisted for a time.
einpoklum|9 months ago
koakuma-chan|9 months ago
yoda222|9 months ago