Microsoft’s new Linux utilities for Windows are missing the point—here’s why WSL wins


While Microsoft used to denounce Linux in the 2000s, it can’t seem to stop itself from finding ways to run Linux programs on Windows today. While WSL, or Windows Susbsystem for Linux, has been the main way to run Linux utilities on Windows, the company has ported some common Linux command-line tools to Command Prompt and PowerShell. I decided to take them for a spin.

What is Coreutils for Windows?

Classic Linux/Unix utilities on the Windows Command Line

Coreutils for Windows Github page.

GNU Core Utilities, or coreutils, is a package that includes most of the familiar utilities that you find in Linux distributions. These are ports of standard Unix utilities. It includes over 100 tools, such as the ls, pwd, echo, and sort. This package is so ubiquitous that it’s one reason that Linux distributions could be justifiably called “GNU/Linux distributions.”

If a Linux distro doesn’t have Coreutils installed by default, it likely has a lightweight alternative, such as BusyBox, to implement basic commands instead. The shell will also implement its own utilities as “built-ins” because it’s faster to load them from memory than from the disk.

GNU’s version isn’t even the only version of coreutils available. Another project, uutils, has released its own version of coreutils written in Rust. Rust is increasingly popular for systems programming because it has memory safety and reduces the risk of serious bugs. It’s this version of coreutils that Microsoft has ported to Windows Command Prompt and PowerShell. The idea is that people who are more familiar with Linux won’t have to switch gears by learning new commands when they use the native Windows command lines instead of Linux distros with WSL.

Installing Coreutils for Windows

Easy installation with winget

Installing Coreutils for Windows was easy enough. I just had to use WinGet to install it. WinGet is a package manager for Windows that’s similar to package managers like apt or pacman you might have used on Linux machines.

All it takes is one command:

winget install Microsoft.Coreutils
Installation of Microsoft coreutils in PowerShell with winget.

The nice thing was that I didn’t have to type sudo before installing it, since WinGet would automatically open up a UAC prompt to install it as the administrator.

Using Coreutils for Windows

Hope you don’t like PowerShell

With coreutils installed, it was now time to see how well it would fit in with my Windows command-line workflow.

I tried a few commands in PowerShell. That’s when I ran immediately into the downside of coreutils on Windows. Microsoft has already aliased a lot of common Linux commands to PowerShell, such as ls and pwd. These aliases already override many of the coreutils utilities.

The GitHub page for coreutils even lists the conflicts with the coreutils and PowerShell commands. Most of the commands happen to conflict with PowerShell commands and aliases.

List of PowerShell conflicts in Coreutfils for Windows.

This means that if you want to use this new package, you’ll have to switch to Command Prompt. This is the older command-line interface on Windows, dating all the way back to Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. This interface is often called a “DOS box” because it resembles the old MS-DOS interface, but it’s really a different command prompt. While it’s been made a first-class citizen in Windows Terminal, it’s not the primary command-line interface on Windows. PowerShell is. Microsoft had announced that Command Prompt was deprecated in favor of PowerShell, but given how many programs rely on it for housekeeping tasks behind the scenes, it looks like it won’t go away anytime soon.

Actually using these utilities in Command Prompt felt familiar. These utilities performed mostly how I expected them to, including ls, cat, and others. That’s not really a surprise, since these are mainly straight ports of existing utilities.

Why I’m sticking with WSL

WSL already does Coreutils for Windows’ job much better

Running Windows and Linux commands together in WSL and PowerShell windows.

Even though Microsoft intended that this package would make it easier for people like me to switch between the Windows and Linux command lines, the disadvantages of this package mean that I’ll likely stay within WSL when I want to run Linux commands from Windows.

The main reason is that there was already a terminal-based tool on Windows where I could run Linux commands I was familiar with: WSL. With WSL, I can install common Linux distros like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and Windows. I can already mix and match Windows and PowerShell commands from each other’s command lines. I can run a Linux command from PowerShell and run Windows commands from WSL by just appending an .exe to the command name.

This means that the coreutils package doesn’t add much new functionality to the command line for someone like me who’s already versed in Linux and likely has WSL installed already.

The other major disadvantage is the package’s reliance on the Command Prompt. While Microsoft seems to be keeping Command Prompt available in the future, since the company is well-known for supporting legacy technologies for its business customers, it’s not a priority. PowerShell and WSL seem to be the main command-line interfaces on Windows.

Even worse, Command Prompt is single-tasking, so there’s nothing like job control or terminal multiplexing available. I would rather have something like PowerShell or, better yet, a Linux shell available where I have full multitasking abilities.

There’s a tradition of Unix-like utilities on DOS and Windows, going back to the 1980s when Microsoft intended for its version of Unix, dubbed “Xenix,” to be the company’s future. Microsoft even made DOS utilities work more like their Unix counterparts in preparation for the move. History turned out differently, but the company’s efforts to blend Linux and Windows seem to be coming full circle.


I’ll stick with WSL for my Linux fix on Windows

Some ideas seem good until you actually try them. I liked the idea of running Unix-like utilities from the Windows command line, but they’ll need to run on PowerShell to be viable. Maybe in future versions, Microsoft could eliminate the conflicts and make coreutils more useful. I’ll continue to use WSL to bridge the gap between Linux and Windows.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link