> Several commands share names with built-ins in CMD and PowerShell. Whether the Coreutils version runs depends on the shell, the PATH order, and (for PowerShell) the alias table.
Well this is not very satisfying, what about proving a way where it actually works without us having to guess where the failure root cause happens to be?
A big part of the point is you can use workflows made for other platforms on windows natively, which you lose when you have to adjust to passing absolute paths
Busybox helps you avoid this nicely on Windows. When you run one of one of its shells, it uses all it's own builtins in preference to anything external.
The best part is the reason it conflicts with a lot of PowerShell is PowerShell shimmed Linux commands over to their Windows equivalents for years even though the flags were different.
So ls in many systems will match the behavior of dir, and only accept the flags for dir. But if you use a system with the newer coreutils release here, ls will expect ls flags!
nope. With ClaudeCode you can create skills ( basically markdown instructions) to teach your agents what command to use. You can also update CLAUDE.md to inject custom instructions that are feeded anything ClaudeCode is started.
So dir is not shipped due to conflict with built-ins, echo and rmdir are shipped despite conflicts, and sort is deemed not to have a conflict? What is the logic?
There's almost no point to this, especially since they're already shipping a (strictly) limited subset with the reasoning "not useful on Windows" despite Windows equivalent facilities _clearly_ existing. They should have at least considered a full native port.
Windows really needs to ditch CRLF and just use LF, and switch from backslashes to forward slashes. Or better yet, just switch everything to full POSIX.
In powershell everything is much better than cmd, but it's just not enough.
WSL is generally great, but there are annoying downsides. I often get "catastrophic" crashes and the zone identifier files drive me nuts. Plus it takes so much longer to start VSCode when connecting with WSL, and now you've got two file systems. WSL1 was in many ways better than WSL2 for these reasons.
Most (everything?) on Windows actually works with forward slashes. However, much of the tooling will overwrite your version with a backslash wherever it can.
"UTF-16 is used by the Windows API, and by many programming environments such as Java and Qt. The variable-length character of UTF-16, combined with the fact that most characters are not variable-length (so variable length is rarely tested), has led to many bugs in software, including in Windows itself.
UTF-16 is the only encoding (still) allowed on the web that is incompatible with 8-bit ASCII. It has never gained popularity on the web, where it is declared by under 0.004% of public web pages (and even then, the web pages are most likely also using UTF-8). UTF-8, by comparison, gained dominance years ago and accounted for 99% of all web pages by 2025."
UTF-16 is also used by C#, Java, and JavaScript. Since JavaScript is so widely adopted, I wouldn't call it a rare bird. Not necessarily used when reading or writing files, but it's what's used internally for the strings. As a result, your strings use UTF-16 surrogate pairs to represent characters outside of the basic multilingual plane (such as Emoji).
> Or better yet, just switch everything to full POSIX.
Really not possible as most of POSIX semantics arise naturally from the kernel (or are enforced/executed at the kernel level). Windows technically provides some of them (or semantic equivalents) so you could make something work, but in order to do a full port you'd need to strip out too many concepts for it to be worthwhile. For instance the idea that "everything is a file" or the single root filesystem layout (which iirc is segmented deeply at the kernel level).
> ... Or better yet, just switch everything to full POSIX.
Interix[0] did a pretty good job of this, but MSFT killed it. I was compiling GNU tools w/ GCC and running bash under Interix back in in 2000 under Windows 2000. It was grand.
No, they need to ditch drive letters first. The NT kernel and NTFS don't even require them (I used to mount disks without drive letters back in the NT 4 era). They just don't care enough to get rid of this annoyance.
users , especially non-technical, find it highly useful in my experience. Is it a net positive to get rid of them, or will it largely only make developers happier ?
powershell is good. its much better than unix's everything piped is Text idea. godawfull that. outputs being objects is a really solid take.
WSL is trash.
besides that, lf vs. crlf is silly as you mention but crlf is more logical considering what its implementing. that being said the notion of these control chars is already based on outdated and limited ideas.
if you want a consistent system to do things with dont pick a system which tries to be two systems.
Linux has wine. Windows has WSL.
I'd recommend BSD. any flavor will do.
might take some adjustments but you will have a more 'rational' system if that is what you desire.
Being able to go someoutput | Format-Table | Select ColumnName,ColumnName,CloumnName is great. Beats memorizing the output format of any specific command and trying to wrangle it with awk.
You can install gnu-compative shell commands when installing git for Windows. It even includes useful unix utilites like bash, so check it out if you're interested.
I would have liked to see head, tail, tr, uniq, and cut. I end up dragging over the old "gnuwin32" versions of those to a lot of Windows machines. Those are my go-to tools for quick-and-dirty log analysis.
I know I could use Powershell for those kinds of tasks, and I certainly do make a lot of use of Powershell, but the familiarity of those simple tools and the decades-old "muscle memory" of using them on various Unix, Linux, and Windows boxes makes them hard to ditch.
Windows has lacked decent ports of recent GNU tools for a while. I still use some very old ones. It would be great if MS worked on the other tool groups like textutils.
I use those commands also to filter output and fee ai agents with that. Tail and Head are my favourites to avoid wasting tokens. Wayy too many fancy build logs messages.
I feel like I'm seeing an error, or I just don't understand what they mean w/ "find" and "Integrated port of the original DOS command" and not listed as conflicting.
There's a "%SystemRoot%\System32\find.exe" on every Windows NT-derived OS. That's absolutely a conflict.
Also, the "find" command from "findutils" is in no way functionally similar to the "original DOS command"
(which is for finding text in files).
Aside: Eschew "find.exe" on Windows for "findstr.exe". The latter is vastly more efficient. I discovered that by happenstance once and have trained my hands to type "findstr" when I mean "find" on Windows.
In the intentionally dropped section, it lists shed as "Not particularly useful on Windows." Does anyone know why? Is thre already a shred-like command in Windows?
It depends on the firmware running on the SSD, so theoretically it’s possible but practically it’s not. Instead, SSDs use a special command to zero all cells on the chip at once, so it’s all or nothing. You can’t target specific files.
To clarify: the host can issue a command to the SSD to securely wipe the whole drive including spare area that is not directly accessible to the host. The SSD controller in the drive issues erase commands to the NAND to erase individual erase blocks, with typical sizes on the order of 16MB.
The SSD controller does not usually keep a history of where older versions of a block of data were stored, so it's not practical to erase an individual file and catch any partial older versions that may not yet have been garbage collected.
The filesystem may choose to store new data at different logical block addresses than older versions. The SSD will definitely choose to store those newly written blocks at different physical addresses, both for the sake of wear leveling and for performance, because a read-erase-rearite cycle on an entire NAND flash erase block (several MB at minimum) is a very slow operation.
No. Shred will "work" - as in, compile, run, and have the expected logical effects of ultimately removing the file from the directory index - on any filesystem backed by any block device. The problem is that overwriting any part of a file is not guaranteed to actually erase the overwritten data. Actually, it never has been; shred is kind of a hack that assumes an overwriting file system driver and a block device dumb enough to not remap sectors writing to media that's intrinsically erasable. e.g. try running shred on a mounted CD-R and see how far that gets you.
FINALLY. This is actually exciting to me... Mind you the linux ports (cygwin, msys2, git bash) are all great to have and I make sure one version or the other is always on my path but having MS maintain them (assuming they continue to do so) is great news
Nice. I appreciate the effort to make things less painful for powerusers. I had noticed some of these working already in PS.
If anyone from MS is reading this can we please also get an equivalents (or even alias) for the thing that shows IP address? The windows equivalent of "ip a" is some convoluted PS command that I can never remember
You could also make your own alias if you specifically want to type "ip a" just add a powershell function to your $PROFILE. function ip { param($argument)...." etc. have it call Get-NetIPAddress, else fallback to ipconfig.
Isn't this just a restricted uutils fork? With most functionality culled for no good reason? "uname isn't useful on Windows" how? OSName/ Build numbers / systeminfo all exist?
That's actually a good idea. Now, I am a Linux person, but I have
windows on a secondary machine. Compiling on Linux is trivial.
On Windows it is possible of course, WSL, msys, what not, but it is
cumbersome. And I hate the default compiler on windows. So if
coreutils on windows helps simplify all the base toolchain, I am
all in favour of it. Windows really needs to make compiling stuff
a LOT easier by default. I don't want to download some x GB of
stuff I don't really need.
Would it make sense to add a prefix to all commands to avoid conflicts with built-in commands? Like how, on macOS and FreeBSD, installing GNU Coreutils adds a `g` prefix, Microsoft could add an `m` prefix to these commands.
Busybox for Windows is the best implementation of coreutils for it, far and away. The maintainer is also very knowledgeable and responsive and actually merges community PRs which is incredible. Microsoft isn't going to do that, so why bother? Microsoft's solution will be a hot buggy mess that needs its own workaround and quirks day 1.
A fair question is why this fork of coreutils is required when the original Rust rewrite (https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/) supports Windows, in addition to Linux, macOS and wasm.
Was not expecting EEE for Coreutils but I suppose it’s the natural consequence of the MIT license used for uutils so not totally unexpected.
It’s annoying enough to support the differences between BSD and Linux, and now Linux has GNU and uutils, and now we’re gonna need Windows variant of uutils…ugh.
Well this is not very satisfying, what about proving a way where it actually works without us having to guess where the failure root cause happens to be?