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.

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/

To me, this seems an impossible feat.

But I wonder how it seems to people who understand how it works?

I'm reminded of this joke:

Two mathematicians are talking. One says a theorem is trivial. After two hours of explanation, the other agrees that it is indeed trivial.

I wonder how similar this project is to "BSD on Windows": https://archive.org/details/bsd-on-windows

Also, I know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_9x, but it's not really meaty enough for my taste. :)

Unfortunately this is ambiguous, as there's an AI product called Zero AI.

Do any screen editors work in the command prompt windows? Try with "export TERM=ansi".

Yes, I have weird problems. I get to look after some very weird shit.

But CoLinux - IIRC - required the NT branch of Windows. I can only imagine the level of hackery it takes to make this happen on Windows 9x.

Part of me wants to weep at the sheer perversity, part of me wants to burst into manic laughter. It is indeed a world of endless wonders.

(To clarify: while the kernel is actually running at ring 0, to act as a driver it seems to use the usermode profile.)

Windows 9x, by contrast, was DOS-derived. Running Linux inside it would require fundamentally different (and messier) hacks - which is probably why nobody did it at the time. The very fact that this works at all is a testament to how ahead-of-its-time NT's architecture was.

For a practical answer: you'd need something like this for legacy locked-in situations. Old medical or industrial software that only runs on Windows 98, or specialized hardware without modern drivers. That said, if you have a 486 handy in 2026, running Linux natively is almost certainly more useful than running it inside a 30-year-old DOS derivative.

> looks inside

> virtual 8086 mode

Edit: to the people who downvoted, I corrected my spelling mistake. I will perform due penance.

  I am going to run this in Windows 95 on a Sun PC card under Solaris 7.

  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

Does it live there irrespective of this project? Or is that part of the patching?

I have not tested this yet, so I have no idea - but if he managed to pull this off then this may be one of the greatest achievements this year. Or perhaps there are some restrictions to it? Does compiling stuff work in it? So many questions ... who has the answers?

I mean it's like trying to balance a cybetruck into 4 skateboards and flunging it over a hill cool