The Windows Subsystem for Linux is now open source
The Windows Subsystem for Linux is now open source
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:Windows Developer Blog
obvs
in reply to abobla • • •I wish they'd open source the name.
It should be called the "Linux Subsystem for Windows".
ReakDuck
in reply to obvs • • •fakeplastic
in reply to obvs • • •randomcruft
in reply to fakeplastic • • •On Windows MS may not call it Defender for Windows… but for Azure, it’s Defender for Cloud, Defender for Containers, Defender for SQL Databases, etc.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud overview
So really it’s just more of Microsoft’s generally crappy naming conventions… I’m looking at you Entra ID!!
edit: added link
🙂
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Overview - Microsoft Defender for Cloud
learn.microsoft.comNanook
in reply to randomcruft • •Zagorath
in reply to fakeplastic • • •If I say "the life support system for the USS Enterprise", nobody thinks that that's a system running on the life support that gives you the USS Enterprise. It's a system running on the USS Enterprise that gives you life support. Windows Subsystem for Linux sounds like it's a system running on Linux that gives you access to Windows.
HumanPenguin
in reply to Zagorath • • •Unfortunately contact mean that example dose work both ways.
If we say enterprise system for life support. People will also understand.
But voyager system for enterprise could apply either way. To be fitted to enterprise or allow enterprise activity on voyager. Or voyager activity on enterprise. For is just bad language in this context.
Here Microsoft should've used a possessive. Voyagers enterprise support system would be more normal.
Or Windows Linux support system.
But marketing and a history of no other OS matters means Mickey$oft insists on it's own layout. Over language clarity.
unwarlikeExtortion
in reply to fakeplastic • • •It's a Linux subsystem for Windows. As in, you run Windows and within it run Linux. Thus Linux is the sub-system, while Windows is the "overarching" system. Therefore, it's Linux running as a subsystem on a Windows machine. Therefore, a Linux subsystem on/for Windows.
\
That was just setting the two viewpoints equal.
Now, to add why this one is more "correct": when talking about Windows (or Linux or anything else fir that matter) subsystems, you don't call the Windows file system the Windows subsystem for Files or the Windows subsystem for Networking or Linux subsystem for RNG - You call them the filesystem, the networking system or the RNG system. And since none of them get the "for host" suffix, it seems natural to assume it't te guest system that's the "sub" system, with the other one being the whole.
morrowind
in reply to obvs • • •aksdb
in reply to morrowind • • •WoW64, which contains the binaries for running 32 bit applications on Windows 64 bit. For historical reasons, the 64 bit binaries live insystem32, obviously.LeFantome
in reply to aksdb • • •Again, it is because it is part of a series.
They already had WoW (Windows on Windows) which was Win16 on Win32. The new one is Win32 on Win64.
And if say “Windows on Windows 64” it is makes sense. It is Windows emulation on top of Windows 64 (64 bit Windows). When they named it, all Windows was 32 bit Windows and 64 bit Windows was the future thing. So “emulating current Windows on Win64” was what WoW64 was doing.
It did not age well though. I agree.
Badabinski
in reply to abobla • • •From the repo's CONTRIBUTING.md:
Meh, a permissive license + a copyright transfer means this shit is just a potential rugpull. MSFT can change the license of the project to source-available or even proprietary at any time and you'll be powerless to stop it.
schnurrito
in reply to Badabinski • • •Badabinski
in reply to schnurrito • • •TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe
in reply to Badabinski • • •CLA is basically a requirement for any larger scale open source project. It would be mental to add a "this single edited line is licensed under X license" to every tiny commit. Microsoft's CLA does not tranfer rights btw, it just licenses your contribution to M$ under "basically BSD 0 clause license" terms.
I guess sure they could do a ragpull but it does not make much sense. Reasons:
1) they have open sourced it themselves
2) It's made by M$ for M$. They don't have competition in the Windows space, so there is no point to hide the code.
Also what would be the worst thing that could happen if they did that? You would either use a fork, because WSL2 is basically feature complete at this points, or you would be have to use a proprietary app on a proprietary OS. Imo the licensing of WSL specifically is the least of Windows' issues.
Badabinski
in reply to TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe • • •You absolutely do not need a CLA with a copyright transfer. There are plenty of large projects that use a Developer Certificate of Origin that protects the company while not allowing them to change the license of your contribution.
I'll grant that my original post was pissy and angry and not a great take, however. You make good points here.
submission process for Linux Kernel programs
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Ferk
in reply to Badabinski • • •Does the DCO really offer a real guarantee? it looks like it just adds a
Signed-off-by Johnline at the end of the commit, with no actual signature checking that enforces any particular version of a particular document is being acknowledged. IANAL but it doesn't look like something proven to work in court to give legal protection.Sure, it's easier to simply add a sign-off-by line than actually accepting a legal agreement, so it reduces the barrier of entry, but if this were really enough to establish the conditions to shift liability then I don't see why companies wouldn't start using their own DCOs and extending them, essentially being the equivalent to a CLA (which is a license agreement, not a copyright transfer, even if some might add terms that allow relicensing.. which anyway is moot point when the original license is MIT anyway).
LeFantome
in reply to Badabinski • • •Sure. Let’s make sure that people know what this really means though.
Microsoft cannot “undo” the current license. If such a “rug pull” happens in the future, we all retain access to the code that exists at that time including all contributions from Microsoft. We can also all continue to not only use it but contribute to it under an Open Source license and keep it a vibrant, useful project if we want. Microsoft is powerless to stop us. We could fork it then or even now without the copyright assignment requirement. We have that freedom.
What the “rug pull” allows Microsoft to do is to decide, in the future, to change their policy and to make further changes themselves and not give us access to those future changes. They have that freedom.
Again, even if Microsoft did this, we could fork and carry-on. Look at Valkey and Reddis as an example.
So, the situation is that Microsoft is Open Sourcing a bunch of work that they did. The maximum possible downside is that they could stop giving us even more in the future. Our reaction is “meh”.
What concerns us is not that Microsoft can take away our freedom. They cannot. What upsets us is that they may retain or receive freedom we do not want them to have.
That is all fine. We are all allowed to think about it as we like and I guess we al value “freedom” in different ways. Sometimes though I think people misunderstand and think somehow that all the code could be “taken back”’. It cannot. Similarly, we might worry that our freedom (even the 4 freedoms) could be lost. For this code, that is not the case.
Badabinski
in reply to LeFantome • • •These are good points. I was in a shitty mood when I made my comment and upon reflection, it's an overstatement and not a very good take. I do still strongly support copyleft licenses and DCOs over CLAs, but I shouldn't turn my nose up when something is released without those.
I used to be excited when companies open-sourced stuff, and that is no longer the case. I suppose I'm just frustrated and bitter and cynical when it comes to large companies doing good things.
CapriciousDay
in reply to abobla • • •LeFantome
in reply to CapriciousDay • • •I am not defending Microsoft but I have a different take.
Microsoft has already lost a the enterprise to Linux. They know it but no longer care that much. This is because the real money is in Azure (the Cloud and “the agentic web”). Microsoft makes a tonne of money off Linux and Kubernetes in the cloud. They hope to make even more money off AI. They are ok that this stuff is all Linux based. They get plenty of lock-in from volume contracts and Azure only APIs and services (especially AI sandboxes ).
However, Microsoft knows the importance of developer mindshare and influence. It is still “developers, developers, developers”. They know they cannot really stop devs from using containers and Linux but they want devs using MS software. So, they are building Linux into the Windows desktop.
They hope, I believe, that the devs will prefer the “best of both worlds” Windows experience over the “all in on Linux only” Linux one.
In some ways, they are competing more with macOS. Devs using Linux on the server had been flocking to macOS on the desktop because it is “also UNIX” but with commercial software support and a nice UX. If Linux had won on the server, Microsoft is defending the Pro desktop.