The way to parse WSL is that it's a <Windows (NT) Subsystem> for Linux.

Windows NT had environment subsystems as a key part of its architecture, with subsystems for POSIX and OS/2, originally[1], and even Win32 was conceptually a subsystem for NT, albeit a very important one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_NT#/me...

> The way to parse WSL is that it's a <Windows (NT) Subsystem> for Linux.

For me that still parses wrong on first try. I mean I can make sense of it, because I already know how it is meant, however for me the most obvious assumption is, that it is for the given host and that host is Windows, not Linux. So Linux (compatibility) subsystem for Windows would make more sense to me.

I think rearranging those words in almost any other order would’ve been superior: WLS, LSW, LWS

And the fun part is that since WSL 2 it's no longer a Windows Subsystem, but just a Linux kernel in VM with some nice integrations with host Windows OS.

And how are you supposed to parse the rust library?

A Rust Binding for WinAPI

That doesn't even contain "Rust for Windows"

Shirley you realise WinAPI is officially named the Windows API?

Yeah but MS could actually call this library what it is, not leave it to multiple levels of inference.

And don't call me Shirley!

<A Rust Library> for Windows

That still sounds like it's a Rust library you get to use on Windows, not a library of Windows functions to use from Rust.

Maybe it's cynical, but I wonder if it's a PR/imaging move. When you read these kind of names, it seems like the Linux/Rust community is embracing and supporting Windows, while really it's the reverse.

I don't think it's cynical at all, and is probably both. I guess in all big companies PR/marketing teams chime in to all public facing projects

I think you are right. If I remember correctly, someone on the typescript team said they have no control over version numbers. PR/marketing decides what is version 4.0 vs 3.11.

I don't think that's strictly true: https://twitter.com/drosenwasser/status/1098748330765619200

As far as major versions go, AFAIK they just bump the mayor version every ten minor versions, of which they release a new one every 3 (?) months.

It was Rust/WinRT, then they added support for other kinds of Windows APIs alongside the WinRT support. Someone probably thought Rust/Windows looked weird, so, Rust for Windows.

Rust/WinRT was called that because it was patterned after C++/WinRT, which was called that because it was a replacement for or alternative to C++/CX, which was called that because it was an analog to C++/CLI. C++/CX and C++/CLI are language extensions/forks, while C++/WinRT and Rust/WinRT are just libraries (and tools).

(I always thought C++/WinRT was a bad choice of name for this reason)

At least they didn’t name it Azure Rust, Rust Live, Rust.net or Rust 365 :)

I'm pretty certain some of these names will appear sooner or later.

Rusty Windows ftw

Or Windows with Rust?

Microsoft naming is incomprehensible sometimes. Doing a .net framework -> dotnet core transition at the moment has really exposed me to a lot of this.

I find Microsoft naming is always suspicious.

"Let's deliberately choose a name for a thing that could be confused for a different thing. [some amount of time and nefarious activity later, and with false innocence] Oh, we've always called it that, so you can't have that namespace even though you think it should belong to that technology that predates our suspicious name with which we encroached on non-Microsoft technology."

New Microsoft project name idea: Microsoft Namespace

A good usage example for a similar naming is "Qt for Python" which is the name of Python bindings of Qt framework.

I literally didn't understand what "Rust for Windows" meant, I needed to read the blog post to understand what it is, which is a Rust library to use Windows API from Rust.

When it was Windows Subsystem for Linux, I assumed marketing dictated "No no, the word Windows MUST be the first word."

This one just seems deliberately confusing for no reason.

Mentioned somewhere else: Windows NT has subsystems. E.g. posix, os2, win32, ... What they do is adding a subsystem to windows. The module they code is the subsystem not the distribution. Nowadays it is a bit blurry die to the full kernel and this windowing subsystem.

AFAIK it was their legal department, who advised them that calling it a "Linux Subsystem" may run afoul of the Linux trademark, especially considering that in WSL1, Linux itself was not involved at all.

Correct. It's a trademark law issue. In the same way that you can develop a "Chess for Windows" but not a "Windows Chess". Using "for X" is fair use.

You say "correct" but you're directly contradicting the parent's point, since with your argument the easily and correctly parsed 'Linux Subsystem "for Windows"' would not run afoul of any trademarks.

Remember -- the name "Linux" is trademarked. Microsoft is free to call something Windows X since they own the Windows trademark, but they can't call something Linux X because they don't own the Linux trademark. But they can call something X for Linux the same way a third party can call something X for Windows. Hence, Windows Subsystem for Linux. It sounds dumb, but that's the legal rationale.

Similarly, the unofficial Reddit apps had to rename from e.g. "Reddit Sync" to "Sync for Reddit".

But even in your example, it shows how bad of a name WSL is. "Chess for Windows" implies that there is a chess program that runs on windows. By analogy, "Windows Subsystem for Linux" implies that there is a Windows Subsystem that can run on Linux.

and windows 0.9? Cmon, not even full 1.0? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

Yes, this is more of a "Rust rof Windows" thing.

Thank you. I was wondering why someone resurrected Windows 0.9 (was that even a thing?) and why in the hell someone would port Rust to it.

This is mostly for legal reasons and the "for X" where X is a trademark is a common theme. (just look at Google Play store "for Twitter" or "for Reddit").

Looks and sounds weird though!

They use that excuse but it doesn't explain the fact that they had alternatives like "the Windows Linux Subsystem" or "the Windows Rust library"...

Even "Rust Library for Windows" (or why not just "Rust Windows API Library") would be more clear.

I think the legal issue was that you don't want to start with a trademark name since it suggests endorsement/support from that party.

Doesn't "Rust for Windows" start with a trademark name?

Yeah I don't know how they got away with that!

I think Microsoft played all of us with this name. The confusion is there intentionally for developers to argue about, therefore generating marketing material for free.

That's exactly what I thought.

It should be Windows support for Rust and not the other way around.

Microsoft sucks at many things. Naming things in a descriptive way is one of them.