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/

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. 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.

  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

Modern linux kernel running cooperatively inside the Windows 9x kernel, sick!

I guess easier than https://github.com/haileys/doslinux

Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?

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.