As much as I like bsd I think the socket interface is their biggest failure, don't get me wrong, the socket interface is not bad, it is an amazing accomplishment that most of the internet is based on. The reason I regard it as a failure is because it is so close but not quite touching. A core unix idea is to have a single namespace registry and a simple universal api(open, seek, read, write, close) to access resources on this registry. and you can tell the bsd socket team was trying(like I said it's close) but they failed to close the loop and shipped an api that did not match the core unix api.

And for free, a rant, I think this is why Microsoft's registry is so bad. On paper it sounds great "a single place to put all your config" I could totally sell it. But in practice it is miserable to use. When proposed nobody said "we already have a hierarchical namespace where all our config can go and it already has pretty great tooling, lets just make it better" so they invented a custom one that required custom special access patterns and custom special tooling and custom special api's, and... it sort of sucks to use. I guess in their defense they were not fully onboard the idea that you could have one tree(they liked their many trees A: B: C:)

I believe you're almost entirely wrong unfortunately. It is true that Windows has subsystems as a technical feature, yes. However, I don't think it's true that WSL (v1, let alone v2) was part of that architecture, despite the name. AFAIK that existing subsystem notion was a user-mode one, where each subsystem was built mostly in user-mode on top of the NT ("native") subsystem, with binaries in the PE format. WSL just completely ignored the whole thing, and even the existing notion of processes, and came up with a separate new thing called "picoprocesses" that it (barely?) wired through some critical kernel components via a custom driver that executed Linux binaries intact, implementing the Linux syscalls.

If you want a list of actual subsystems Windows recognizes, this should be pretty accurate:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-for...

The real reason for calling it a subsystem was almost entirely for familiarity with the previous concept of running Linux programs on Windows, which were based on that subsystem feature (the POSIX subsystem and the Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications).

This, and it may have also been a legal thing. "Product for Third-Party OS" has been accepted as a descriptive use of a third-party trademark for decades, requiring only proper attribution rather than a license, whereas marketing a product that didn't even originally use the Linux kernel as a "Linux Subsystem" might have been considered riskier by Microsoft's lawyers in spite of the nonstandard use of the former.

WSL was a traditional subsystem in the Windows NT tradition, it just never worked properly.

WSL2 runs real Linux in a virtual machine.

> It makes more sense when you read it as "Windows subsystem for [running] Linux [applications]".

You can't have ellipsis when the shortened version already has its own meaning.

X for Y when both X and Y are nouns means that X is part of Y, not that Y is part of X.

e.g. "I bought new tyres for my car". The tyres are part of my car. You can't flip it and say "I bought new my car for tyres", it's just not how the word "for" works.

Grammatically it has to be "Linux for Windows subsystem", or "Windows subsystem for running Linux" as you said. The verb is essential for it to parse correctly.

Sub for system Windows Linux.

It’s a proper noun, there are no rules.

Someone can probably make a valid "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" out of Copilot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...

You're talking about the aladeen or that aladeen? I don't understand which aladeen you are talking about.

You could try Copilot Copilot for Windows with Windows Copilot. I know it's still got Copilot in it, but not as much as Copilot Copilot Copilot Copilot MS Office for Windows Copilot.

Copilot Copilot Copilot Copilot

Gaming Copilot: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/gaming-copilot

They have that on windows game bar. Then you press the xbox button there’s a copilot “for games” there

A valid use case would be AI pretending to be the second player so that you can pretend you're having friends over while actually you're alone. Schizophrenia-as-a-Service.

Microsoft Azure .NET Core Copilot 355 (classic)

.NET Core does not exist anymore: it was renamed to .NET with .NET 5.0 (skipping version 4.0):

> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.NET&oldid=134276...