Wake me up when they open source windows....
Open source or not WSL is just a long game embrace, extend, extinguish and particularly designed to stop *NIX OSs gaining a foothold in the enterprise development space.
From the repo's CONTRIBUTING.md:
Most contributions require you to agree to a Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
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.
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:
they have open sourced it themselves
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.
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.
CLA and copyright assignment are different things. In some jurisdictions copyright assignment is impossible. That was among the clashes European FOSS contributors had with the Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallmann in the 1990s and 2000s.
They can change future versions to that, not already released ones.
You're correct, but I don't believe that a company shouldn't be allowed to take my code and change its license in the future. If they want to take something proprietary, they can go ahead and remove my contribution from it first.
MIT license already allows this, with or without CLA.
That's why you can also take Microsoft's MIT code and make proprietary software out of it.
If you want to enforce that, you need to fork it and put a copyleft license on it. This is very rarely done because it's more work to maintain software than to write it...
Hence my initial whinging about how this was released with a permissive license and a copyright transfer. The longer I'm involved in this industry, the less I like permissive software licensing. There's obviously a place for it, but my tolerance for permissive licensing is directly tied to my trust for the person or organization backing the software. I don't trust Microsoft, and I don't think I will ever personally contribute to their software unless my contribution is made under a copyleft license and with a DCO, not a copyright-transferring CLA.
You should still be able to fork, right? Under a non copyrighted name (see: firefox to icecat)
Does it run wine? Does it run on wine? I need to recurse.
I wish they'd open source the name.
It should be called the "Linux Subsystem for Windows".
This is actually due to trademark/copyright.
The first thing can’t be Linux due to that
However I agree.
No, Windows has various subsystems. This one is for Linux.
When Windows NT 3.5 launched, it came with subsystems for POSIX, OS/2, and Win32 because in the WinNT world even the Windows frameworks are a subsystem. Disclaimer: I didn't check if in Win11 this is still the case but I guess so.
It's so annoying, because both are technically grammatically correct, but the current one just sounds the opposite
Microsoft really has a knack for that. I also like WoW64, which contains the binaries for running 32 bit applications on Windows 64 bit. For historical reasons, the 64 bit binaries live in system32, obviously.
There you can see that only drunks work at Microaoft.
It's a subsystem of Windows. Therefore, a Windows Subsystem. I don't know what else would make sense. A "subsystem of Linux for Windows" wouldn't make sense. They don't call their other features "Notepad for Windows" or "Defender for Windows."
It’s a subsystem of Windows
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.
If I say “the life support system for the USS Enterprise”,
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.
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.
<edit>
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's the guest system that's the "sub" system, with the other one being the whole.
</edit>
You say "The Windows Memory Subsystem" not "The Windows Subsystem for Memory".
Windows Linux Subsystem would likely be most clear.
This depends entirely of what you mean by "of Windows" and what you mean by "for Linux". This terminology is ambiguous.
Are you a Lemmy user for lemmy.world, or are you a lemmy.world user for Lemmy?
It's also inconsistent because when they say, for example, "Microsoft Azure Linux Container Host for AKS", they are talking about running a Microsoft Azure Linux Container inside of AKS, not a container that is meant to be used for running AKS within it...
Does 'Notepad subsystem for Linux' sound to you like a Windows or Linux subsystem?
It sounds like a subsystem of notepad because that's the word used as the modifier.
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
🙂
@randomcruft @fakeplastic I'm not real comfortable with my data on someone else's computer, but triply so if that somebody is Microsoft, Gargoyle, or Amazon.
OSS or not, if its Windows I will take a shit on it
What exactly is a windows subsystem? Is it like VM?
Pretty much. It's hyper-v under the hood giving you a linux VM that's integrated just enough to keep up some sort of linux workflow. I'm happy to shit on it as much as the next person, but for many who are locked into a ms corporate ecosystem because work policy, it's a decent little window in your jail cell.
I guess it won’t be long before someone launches Windows 3.11 Subsystem for Linux.
MIT license, for those wondering.
Now make windows run just for compatibility on a Linux Subsystem. How we actually need it in daily life...
That...is wine.
Windows makes wine?
Sounds like they're basically abandoning it but at least giving the code out so the community can still use and keep it up until it becomes incompatible with Windows. It is one of the few ways I'm able to get my Windiws 11 work computer to do what I need with all the security and tracking junk my company installs on our laptops, even for developers, so I hope it sticks around for a while.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0