[stephenr]

This has exactly the same problem as Microsoft's WSL: they're conflating Linux with "distribution built around GNU userland".

I'm not a gnu zealot. I think rms has many faults. But a major company saying "now you can run Linux on android" or "now you can run Linux on Windows subsystem for Linux" is beyond stupid.

In the case of Samsung it's Like saying you can make a sandwich out of a sandwich. In the case of Microsoft it's like saying you can make a real roast chicken out of a soy chicken.

[nolok]

And now you've just understood why the gnu zealots (whom I'm not a part of either) insisted on the proper GNU/Linux naming, because they saw it coming and now all of it got mixed up in the single name "linux" which can mean anything and everything.

The number of things I've spent decades thinking "wow, rms/they're borderline crazy" only to end up with "oh okay, they had a point" is kind of humbling. DRM, encryption, naming, ...

Yet I'm still not in agreement with the GPL and keep thinking MIT or BSD are better. Maybe only to be proved wrong again in the future.

[stephenr]

I always kind of got their point, but if I say "I used to run Debian Linux in a virtual machine, now I can just run Debian under Windows subsystem for Linux" there is no ambiguity, no one should be confused.

Nobody just runs Linux + the gnu environment compiled from source themselves. People use a distribution, which has a name.

[swiley]

I've always thought of WSL as "implementing the Linux kernel API on Windows so you can run software written for it." I don't think it's necessarily restricted to GNU it's just that's what most people use and it's what's included.

[stephenr]

That is what it is - it's a compatibility layer to provide (a subset of) Linux kernel system calls on Windows, allowing the user to run ELF binaries as-is.

The problem is Microsoft's phrasing. They're calling the distros (eg ubuntu or suse) that can run on WSL sans Linux (as they use the NT kernel w/WSL) "Linux".

https://twitter.com/TechBandCamp/status/920733089948504064

It's like saying "for our lactose intolerant customers we sell cheeseburgers without cheese".

[nolok]

That's because they need the public and marketing name to be understood not by the tech deciders who understands what it is and how it works, but by their boss.

Said boss have very little idea what "kernel compatibility layer" or "running ELF binary as-is" means, but they do get "running linux".

[stephenr]

The announcement that includes the name change (from bash on Windows of all things) is pages long.

They could have said "run a Linux Distribution" or "run Debian/RedHat/Centos".

This is aimed at technical people, who should either know or be able to understand that Linux is the name of the kernel and is explicitly not part of this - WSL is (claimed to be) free of any Linux source.

[wvenable]

Microsoft is offering a Linux-compatible kernel. Calling any distribution "Linux" has a long history that pre-dates anything Microsoft has done.

[stephenr]

But they are usually called Linux Distributions - and then more specifically by their distro name.