Microsoft Promotes Windows Subsystem For Linux "WSL" To GA Status

[ssokolow]

What you are talking about happend with windows 95 when they introduced a vmm and .vxd drivers and windows could switch up to protected mode itself and take control of hardware.

Windows 3.1x had a primitive form of that. That's what "386 Enhanced Mode" (which you couldn't turn off in 3.11 for Workgroups) and "32-bit Disk Access" were.

The Win16 API may have required every graphical app running in the same protected mode VM for backwards compatibility, but each MS-DOS window got its own protected mode VM and Windows 3.1x running in 386 Enhanced Mode did run a VMM.

There was a lot of stuff we associate with Windows 9x that got its start in more primitive and less broadly used forms in Windows 3.1x, such as the Registry. (Seriously. Try launching regedit in Windows 3.11 for Workgroups. It began as a filetype associations database which got built out to serve more roles in later Windows releases as part of improving their IT deployment and management story.)

[erniv2]

Your understanding of computing is at the level of a cargo cultist.

DOS is a set of abstractions over the BIOS. It has no memory manager, no driver framework, it doesn't even control programs that run "on top of" it, it completely relinquishes control to the program, that uses DOS as a library. In fact, some programs didn't even use DOS after booting at all, they would completely wipe it from memory after loading. It's not an OS, it's not even a kernel. It's name is a misnomer, it's even less than a bootloader by modern standards. Even the UEFI firmware in your computer is leagues more advanced than DOS.

Windows 3.1 *is* an OS. It has a memory manager, it has control over the programs that run over it (even if only cooperatively), it has it's own API standard. It is by all intents and purposes an OS, it does everything DOS does not. Calling it a GUI is like calling a monitor a computer.

You don't even know what an OS is outside of what you've been told by misinformed people from the 90s who didn't even have an internet connection to use to look this stuff up. Do not talk about things you do not understand, unless you want to put a flag on top of Mount Stupid.

Actually i was there, and used it Dos had drivers for CD drives and alot of other stuff and it also had memorymanagment drivers, without himem.sys you couldnt even load windows 3.x.

Back in the day you had 640kb RAM surprise, ofc. a modern UEFI that reserves around 80MB of you ram just for SMM tasks is more modern omg.

There where things like Highram and EMS ram and all that funky stuff in DOS and DOS4GW if you had to many drivers in lowram you couldn´t even start a game because it needed atleast 512kb of the 640kb ram and you had to look for free ram somewhere else.

What you are talking about happend with windows 95 when they introduced a vmm and .vxd drivers and windows could switch up to protected mode itself and take control of hardware.

And comparing dos that had a memory footprint of like 20kb 30 years ago and a modern system is just a bad joke we have GB`s of ram now and every shit can be loaded and nobody gives a .... hey just loading 1 linux kernel module let it just be dunno vfat will allready use 15kb holy crap back in the day dos ran vfat and all the other stuff at the same size.

[TNZfr]

Just a simple question : did you run once Windows 3.x, install it, use it, develop on it ?
(virtualbox experiment is not a valid answer, copy/paste from wikipedia neither)

[Ironmask]

You're more precise than me, thanks !
(given the fanatics opposite, I was leaving from afar)

I find it funny how you're an even worse case given that you can't explain what makes an OS besides "it needs GRUB".
Why are you so insistent on enforcing your skewed idea of what an OS is when you don't even know what DOS does?

[TNZfr]

* DOS is a kernel not a bootloader.

It´s a OS, a kernel + a set of utils (fdisk, del, copy, move, dir...) Disk Operating System

* Windows 3.x is a graphical application running on a DOS kernel.

Thats actually correct Windows 3.x is a GUI for DOS

* Linux is a kernel.

Correct.

* GNU/Linux is an OS.

You can say Linux(kernel)+GNU Utils make the basic of an OS like DOS.

What is percived as Linux are the distributions made up of hundreds of projects, but Linux is actually "the kernel"

And when WSL uses a modified downstream Linux kernel you run Linux problem solved

You're more precise than me, thanks !
(given the fanatics opposite, I was leaving from afar)

[Ironmask]

* DOS is a kernel not a bootloader.

It´s a OS, a kernel + a set of utils (fdisk, del, copy, move, dir...) Disk Operating System

* Windows 3.x is a graphical application running on a DOS kernel.

Thats actually correct Windows 3.x is a GUI for DOS

* Linux is a kernel.

Correct.

* GNU/Linux is an OS.

You can say Linux(kernel)+GNU Utils make the basic of an OS like DOS.

What is percived as Linux are the distributions made up of hundreds of projects, but Linux is actually "the kernel"

And when WSL uses a modified downstream Linux kernel you run Linux problem solved

Your understanding of computing is at the level of a cargo cultist.

DOS is a set of abstractions over the BIOS. It has no memory manager, no driver framework, it doesn't even control programs that run "on top of" it, it completely relinquishes control to the program, that uses DOS as a library. In fact, some programs didn't even use DOS after booting at all, they would completely wipe it from memory after loading. It's not an OS, it's not even a kernel. It's name is a misnomer, it's even less than a bootloader by modern standards. Even the UEFI firmware in your computer is leagues more advanced than DOS.

Windows 3.1 *is* an OS. It has a memory manager, it has control over the programs that run over it (even if only cooperatively), it has it's own API standard. It is by all intents and purposes an OS, it does everything DOS does not. Calling it a GUI is like calling a monitor a computer.

You don't even know what an OS is outside of what you've been told by misinformed people from the 90s who didn't even have an internet connection to use to look this stuff up. Do not talk about things you do not understand, unless you want to put a flag on top of Mount Stupid.

[TNZfr]

There is no such OS as GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux at best is a set of bases many OS Distros use, but not all Linux based Distros use it, such as Alpine based on the Musl libc.

WSL2 uses Microsoft's Hyper-V to boot the custom kernel that I linked to. It is the Linux kernel. What part of that you don't understand is beyond me. It is configured to not include a lot of things not needed, which is the same thing you can do with any Distro's kernel and do for Gentoo for example.

WSL2 emulates a specific PC and uses Hardware Virtualization to create a Linux machine that sees itself as a separate computer, just like every other virtualization software.

Ok, so download the latest 6.0.9, compile it, install it and boot on it ... after, we discuss.

[Vistaus]

Curious you decided to make a summary of a thread without reading it.

Curious you didn't understand my joke.

[erniv2]

And now I know you're trolling.
That or you're underage.

* DOS is a kernel not a bootloader.

It´s a OS, a kernel + a set of utils (fdisk, del, copy, move, dir...) Disk Operating System

* Windows 3.x is a graphical application running on a DOS kernel.

Thats actually correct Windows 3.x is a GUI for DOS

* Linux is a kernel.

Correct.

* GNU/Linux is an OS.

You can say Linux(kernel)+GNU Utils make the basic of an OS like DOS.

What is percived as Linux are the distributions made up of hundreds of projects, but Linux is actually "the kernel"

And when WSL uses a modified downstream Linux kernel you run Linux problem solved

[Ironmask]

Summary of this thread: “Microsoft is still continuing their EEE strategy”.

Curious you decided to make a summary of a thread without reading it.