4/20/2026 at 4:53:15 AM
sudo makes sense as a name, but it is worth noting that it hurts the original projects.Famously, the curl project receives tonnes of issues and support requests from people who run `curl` in PowerShell, not knowing it is an alias meant for convenience instead of the actual curl command[1].
Sudo for windows is already relatively old and doesn't seem to have been adopted much, but my prediction is that adoption would mean people would complain on forums that commands they found on the internet don't work. "Why wouldnt it? I have sudo?". Then people will have to explain to them that "No you do not have sudo, you have the windows version of sudo, which is not real sudo" and it will confuse.
When it comes to tools, I strongly believe naming things similarly to concepts the user already knows is a disservice to the user. This isn't UX for your mom and pop, it is a tool to perform a job, and learners get confused when suddenly the same thing isn't actually the same thing at all. It is mislearning, and I would argue almost anyone who does mentoring has seen this in action.
[1]: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/08/19/removing-the-powershe...
by petterroea
4/20/2026 at 5:06:52 AM
> sudo makes sense as a nameIt doesn't though. There is no concept of a singular superuser like there is on UNIX. On Windows you have Administrator, but that is a role that can be assigned to any user.
And Administrators do not have full power, that would be the SYSTEM user. Which you cannot switch to with Sudo for Windows however - but you can with the runas tool, which has been around for decades.
by steve1977
4/20/2026 at 5:43:58 AM
Minor nitpick, but there's not necessarily a single super user in UNIX. You can create multiple users with uid=0 and they all will be super users.by vbezhenar
4/20/2026 at 6:12:31 AM
See sibling reply. The uid is what defines the user, the name is just a convenient alias.by steve1977
4/20/2026 at 6:53:28 AM
Not really. You can have separate users with separate $HOME, separate passwords, separate groups, separate everything.User is user. Uid is uid. It's not the same. Uid is used for file permissions, that's true.
by vbezhenar
4/20/2026 at 7:23:09 AM
If you try and set up "separate users" with "separate $HOME" that map to the same UID, all those "users" will "own" all those same files, and all processes started by one another. They would be able to kill processes, delete/modify/add files, impersonate one another. Because they are the same user.You would be unable to enforce quotas or privacy for any of them. Whatever they did on the system would be indistinguishable, because their process UIDs would be identical. Any files they created would be owned the same. Sure, set them up with unique lists of GIDs; it really doesn't matter in the end.
I have no idea what you mean "User is user", but you are right: UID is not the same as a username. The username exists only in the passwd(5) database, and not in the kernel, like at all. The kernel has no idea what usernames are, and that's why they're irrelevant to user administration.
by ButlerianJihad
4/20/2026 at 5:47:02 AM
But they all have the same UID, and are technically "the same user", even if you foolishly confer disparate usernames and passwords on them. When the system reverse-maps their UID it will display "root" because there is, ultimately, only one superuser on Unix.The situation is the same for any userid and any groupid. If you try creating three ordinary users with a UID of 3005, they will be, essentially, the same user. There is no way at the system level to differentiate them, after they have authenticated. Because their files and processes are owned by the same UID.
This sharing of UIDs is generally discouraged and quite undesirable. It makes systems administration a real mess.
by ButlerianJihad
4/20/2026 at 2:17:58 PM
There is an old practice of having an alternative `toor` user with UID=0, with a different shell and password, in case someone screws the primary `root` account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toor_(Unix)by man8alexd
4/20/2026 at 5:39:25 AM
Hopefully these aliases will be renamed to "Copilot-Sudo" and "Copilot-Curl" soon enough.by boomlinde
4/20/2026 at 6:33:33 AM
Uh clearly you don't PowerShell enough. It should be `Invoke-CopilotSudo`by eddythompson80
4/20/2026 at 5:58:33 AM
Maybe `wudo`? Windows Sudo!by dainank
4/20/2026 at 6:43:21 AM
If sudo stands for “superuser do”, and on Windows they call this user an “Administrator”. It stands to reason they should call it `audo`.Though this would be confusing, as people would pronounce it like “adieu”, which would make it sound like an alias for `logoff`.
by al_borland
4/20/2026 at 6:55:15 AM
> It stands to reason they should call it `audo`."Administrator" doesn't contain a "u". `addo`/`ado` both would make more sense and flows better off the tongue.
by NekkoDroid
4/20/2026 at 7:02:20 AM
SuperUser DOAdministrator User DO
by al_borland
4/20/2026 at 6:13:15 AM
Or 'mudo', Microsoft sudo.With the added benefit of having appropriate meaning in some slavic languages.
by miroljub
4/20/2026 at 11:31:52 AM
How about ms-sudo/mssudo and ms-curl/mscurlby leeman2016
4/20/2026 at 5:08:31 AM
> Famously, the curl project receives tonnes of issues and support requests from people who run `curl` in PowerShell, not knowing it is an alias meant for convenience instead of the actual curl command[1].Well, that explains a lot of the issues I was running into a few weeks ago...
by Pay08
4/20/2026 at 6:28:07 AM
The curl alias in powershell is not compatible so it is an inconvenience. Must be one of the worst decisions to make it into windows, which is saying a lot.by pletnes
4/20/2026 at 6:59:47 AM
The worst part is that Windows does ship cURL as a binary at `C:\Windows\System32\curl.exe` (may be dependent on some optional feature, dunno). Nowadays it does invoke this for me on my system, but I don't remember if I did something for this to be the case.by NekkoDroid
4/20/2026 at 6:46:23 AM
Most of the aliases are for convenience when working in an interactive shell, which will generally be dealing with more basic functions of a command. For scripting it is best practice to use the full commandlet names.by al_borland
4/20/2026 at 11:12:33 AM
Browsers let me copy-paste curl commands from developer tools. These don’t work with windows «curl».I know a few flags of curl too. These also don’t generally work with «curl».
by pletnes
4/20/2026 at 10:07:18 AM
> Sudo for windows is already relatively old and doesn't seem to have been adopted much,...Because probably this was pushed due to meet some OKRs ("made an impact").
It adds nothing over runas, other than being a known name to folks educated in UNIX.
Which is hardly of any benefit, given that Windows is not UNIX.
by pjmlp
4/20/2026 at 11:46:49 AM
It seems like this adds much tighter integration between the caller and callee processes used named pipes and RPC communication, such as being able to share input/output streams within the same terminal session, which is a significant value add compared to runas.exe.by tjarjoura
4/20/2026 at 7:28:09 AM
Indeed. This is the "Embrace" stage.by tpoacher
4/20/2026 at 7:05:53 AM
If you're on Windows, run this once: 'Remove-Alias curl, wget' >> $PROFILE
by fainpul
4/20/2026 at 11:10:03 AM
This feels like a very dishonest take because the problem being discussed is clearly beginners being confused. How does your solution scale to the problem at hand?by petterroea
4/20/2026 at 11:32:59 AM
Of course it doesn't help if a beginner doesn't understand why their curl command fails. I wrote this half in jest, because everytime PowerShell comes up, people like to Bash it for its stupid aliases on Windows. Yes these aliases are really stupid, but if you are using PS on Linux, it's not an issue and if you are on Windows, you just remove those aliases and continue living your life.Some examples from this discussion:
> The curl alias in powershell is not compatible so it is an inconvenience.
> *nix fanboys were totes fine with wget and ls being an aliases in PowerShell for years but when they found out what PS is coming to Linux they made a biggest stink.
> Only the old powershell.exe builtin to Windows has these aliases and it’s worse today because curl.exe is builtin and the curl alias takes priority when you run just curl.
> It's wget for Windows all over again
> Ah yes, the 'curl' alias in powershell, vs the 'curl.exe' binary that uses the traditional options.
by fainpul
4/20/2026 at 5:28:39 AM
>> Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.[0]Between that quote and "You can't fix stupid" I always choose the one about circus.
*nix fanboys were totes fine with wget and ls being an aliases in PowerShell for years but when they found out what PS is coming to Linux they made a biggest stink. It didn't even mattered what 99.999% of the scripts which utilized that call were the simple 'get file' and nothing more.
[0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rick_Cook#The_Wizardry_Compile...
by justsomehnguy
4/20/2026 at 7:50:37 AM
I think Powershell and .net coming to linux is very welcome because I can keep hosting stuff with what I believe is a saner platform, and Windows developers can still keep using the platform they prefer. It's a win-win.IMO .net is much better than Java, at least it was 10 years ago. So it's not like I don't understand them.
by petterroea
4/20/2026 at 6:14:12 AM
> *nix fanboys were totes fine with wget and ls being an aliases in PowerShell for years but when they found out what PS is coming to Linux they made a biggest stinkThe curl and wget aliases don’t exist on the PowerShell 7 version which is the cross platform one. Only the old powershell.exe builtin to Windows has these aliases and it’s worse today because curl.exe is builtin and the curl alias takes priority when you run just curl.
by jborean93
4/20/2026 at 5:09:56 AM
I, for one, have had to explain to Juniors multiple times that WSL isn't Linux, and why it's no replacement for Linux. Happens almost every time they try to do anything more advanced than a WSL hello world, and it inevitably fails.I still let them try, because it beats me having to check "is wsl good now", and they learn much better from personal experience than someone more senior who uses arch btw just telling them "don't use windows"
by petterroea
4/20/2026 at 5:15:52 AM
Interesting, I've been using it with zero issues (including performance) for several years now. Compiled stuff, ran scientific calculations, trained neural nets with GPU passthrough, even switched over a workload from an old Red hat box to WSL Alma.Only weirdness has been systemd can sometimes be quirky, and GUI stuff can be glitchy (which doesn't affect me much, because 99% of what I do is in the terminal)
So, anecdotally it is perfectly adequate for workloads beyond a Hello World. What issues are you running into?
by StableAlkyne
4/20/2026 at 5:18:00 AM
Mostly its related to filesystem and permissions. Interface between windows and Linux, and mismatch in how the two work.Compute etc is fine!
by petterroea
4/20/2026 at 5:40:27 AM
Yeah its best to avoid using the windows filesystem for anything else but a source of cp -rby yread
4/20/2026 at 10:27:14 AM
Hardly any different from mounting UNIX filesystems that don't obey exactly the same semantics.by pjmlp
4/20/2026 at 11:06:35 AM
As someone who develops for both Windows and Linux I find WSL to be very useful. Much better than my previous method of dual booting Linux and Windows. I've yet to run into a problem that I needed to boot into native Linux for.by tjarjoura
4/20/2026 at 9:33:22 AM
$ uname -a Linux MYPC 6.6.87.2-microsoft-standard-WSL2 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Jun 5 18:30:46 UTC 2025 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/LinuxDunno, looks pretty Linux to me.
(WSL1 did suck badly because it combined the limitations of NT - slow file ops and process spawn - with the limitations of a compatibility layer. WSL2 is good enough for compatibility testing work on e.g. dotnet)
by pjc50
4/20/2026 at 10:10:10 AM
WSL 2.0 is literally a Linux VM running on top of Hyper-V, hardly any different of running a VM on a cloud vendor.Nowadays WSL implies version 2.0, who is still using the half done implementation of WSL 1.0?
Or using Virtual Box, VMWare Workstation, QEMU,...
by pjmlp
4/20/2026 at 9:15:40 AM
wsl2 is literally just a linux vm isn't it?by mastermage
4/20/2026 at 10:27:53 AM
Yep, running on Hyper-V.by pjmlp
4/20/2026 at 5:54:59 AM
WSL1 is not Linux because it is mapping system calls from the Linux kernel ABI to NT. That sounds like what you're describing. WSL2 is a Microsoft distro running in a VM that integrates into Windows.I use WSL2 every day and it has some annoying quirks with how their Wayland implementation behaves with DWM, but otherwise it's just a Linux environment.
by bezier-curve
4/20/2026 at 5:47:58 AM
Actually, WSL is pretty good for development. Of course, I wouldn't use WSL to run server software.by DeathArrow