flinux essentially had the architecture of WSL1, while CoLinux was more like WSL2 with a Linux kernel side-loaded.
Cygwin was technically the correct approach: native POSIX binaries on Windows rather than hacking in some foreign Linux plumbing. Since it was merely a lightweight DLL to link to (or a bunch of them), it also kept the cruft low without messing with ring 0.
However, it lacked the convenience of a CLI package manager back then, and I remember being hooked on CoLinux when I had to work on Windows.
show comments
scoopr
So, is it like colinux[0], but for pre-NT windows? Neat!
Back when I was still using windows (probably XP era), I used to run colinux, it was kind of amazing, setting up something like LAMP stack on the linux side was a lot easier and then using windows editors for editing made for quite nice local dev env, I think! Could even try some of the X11 servers on windows and use a linux desktop on top of windows.
When I noticed I kept inching towards more and more unixy enviornment on the windows, I eventually switched to macOS.
Apart from the obvious hack-value, I can't quite imagine even pretend use-case, with some 486 era machine, you would be limited by memory quite quickly!
Hmm I wonder how stable it is.. It cannot render correctly Window control buttons (Minimize, Maximize, Close). If it fails on such basic task, I wonder where it crashes...
fouc
Modern linux kernel running cooperatively inside the Windows 9x kernel, sick!
pwdisswordfishq
> "no hardware virtualisation"
> looks inside
> virtual 8086 mode
keyle
I thought this was about running windows 9x within linux. Is there such thing without virtualisation?
globular-toast
Does this mean it runs on Linux or runs on Windows. I can never tell with this MS "subsystem" naming.
defrost
I am going to run this in Windows 95 on a Sun PC card under Solaris 7.
from the same commenter who effused
jesus fucking christ this is an abomination of epic proportions that has no right to exist in a just universe and I love it so much
show comments
ilkkao
Little late but would this have actually allowed running early Linux under Windows when Windows 95 came out in the 90s? I remember only dual booting being available at that time.
ErroneousBosh
If I can get this to work (haven't tried yet) it directly solves a problem I have right now this week right here in 2026, 30 years after Windows 95 was even a thing.
Yes, I have weird problems. I get to look after some very weird shit.
show comments
vrganj
Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?
show comments
varispeed
This could prompt me to finally assemble the Pentium desktop I have in storage in parts.
aa-jv
Oddly enough, I could kind of use this right now. I have some software which used SCSI (Adaptec WNASPI32.dll) calls to administer a device over the SCSI bus .. would this Subsystem be usable for that, or does it still require I build a WNASP32.dll shim to do translation?
show comments
raverbashing
That's cool
I mean it's like trying to balance a cybetruck into 4 skateboards and flunging it over a hill cool
Before WSL, the best ways to run unmodified Linux binaries inside Windows were CoLinux and flinux.
http://www.colinux.org/
https://github.com/wishstudio/flinux
flinux essentially had the architecture of WSL1, while CoLinux was more like WSL2 with a Linux kernel side-loaded.
Cygwin was technically the correct approach: native POSIX binaries on Windows rather than hacking in some foreign Linux plumbing. Since it was merely a lightweight DLL to link to (or a bunch of them), it also kept the cruft low without messing with ring 0.
However, it lacked the convenience of a CLI package manager back then, and I remember being hooked on CoLinux when I had to work on Windows.
So, is it like colinux[0], but for pre-NT windows? Neat!
Back when I was still using windows (probably XP era), I used to run colinux, it was kind of amazing, setting up something like LAMP stack on the linux side was a lot easier and then using windows editors for editing made for quite nice local dev env, I think! Could even try some of the X11 servers on windows and use a linux desktop on top of windows.
When I noticed I kept inching towards more and more unixy enviornment on the windows, I eventually switched to macOS.
Apart from the obvious hack-value, I can't quite imagine even pretend use-case, with some 486 era machine, you would be limited by memory quite quickly!
[0] http://colinux.org/
By microsoft's naming scheme this should be Linux Subsystem for Windows
I guess easier than https://github.com/haileys/doslinux
Hmm I wonder how stable it is.. It cannot render correctly Window control buttons (Minimize, Maximize, Close). If it fails on such basic task, I wonder where it crashes...
Modern linux kernel running cooperatively inside the Windows 9x kernel, sick!
> "no hardware virtualisation"
> looks inside
> virtual 8086 mode
I thought this was about running windows 9x within linux. Is there such thing without virtualisation?
Does this mean it runs on Linux or runs on Windows. I can never tell with this MS "subsystem" naming.
Little late but would this have actually allowed running early Linux under Windows when Windows 95 came out in the 90s? I remember only dual booting being available at that time.
If I can get this to work (haven't tried yet) it directly solves a problem I have right now this week right here in 2026, 30 years after Windows 95 was even a thing.
Yes, I have weird problems. I get to look after some very weird shit.
Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?
This could prompt me to finally assemble the Pentium desktop I have in storage in parts.
Oddly enough, I could kind of use this right now. I have some software which used SCSI (Adaptec WNASPI32.dll) calls to administer a device over the SCSI bus .. would this Subsystem be usable for that, or does it still require I build a WNASP32.dll shim to do translation?
That's cool
I mean it's like trying to balance a cybetruck into 4 skateboards and flunging it over a hill cool