On a Windows box I reach for a Linux shell first — not because Windows tooling is broken, but because the Unix-style command line gives me the fastest, most portable path from idea to execution. That preference, which many readers will recognize from long years of using bash, zsh, or other shells, is what drives me to install and configure Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) on every new Windows machine I own instead of defaulting to PowerShell. The practical reasons are familiarity, tooling, portability, and the real-world reality that much modern CLI software is Linux-first. This piece examines those reasons in depth, verifies the technical claims behind them, weighs PowerShell’s counterarguments, and lays out the trade-offs every Windows desktop developer should understand before picking their default shell.
Microsoft introduced native Bash on Windows in 2016 with the Windows Subsystem for Linux, a project explicitly aimed at bringing Linux developer tools to Windows without a heavy VM. The goal was to make Windows a better developer workstation by letting users run native Linux command-line tools alongside Windows apps. Over the years WSL has evolved — WSL2 brought a real Linux kernel in a lightweight VM to dramatically improve compatibility and performance, and WSLg added integrated GUI support for Linux apps. Microsoft has continued to invest in WSL as a first-class developer feature, even moving parts of the WSL project to open-source to accelerate community contributions. (blogs.windows.com, devblogs.microsoft.com)
PowerShell, by contrast, is the native Microsoft shell and scripting language that has matured from a Windows-only, .NET‑Framework-based tool into a cross-platform, open-source project now distributed as PowerShell 7.x. Its design centers on structured objects (PSObjects) flowing through pipelines instead of plain text streams. Microsoft positioned PowerShell as a powerful administrative and automation framework, and has integrated it deeply into Windows tooling — even making it the default option in some UI contexts where Command Prompt used to sit. (devblogs.microsoft.com, support.microsoft.com)
Both approaches are legitimate. The question is: for day‑to‑day developer work on Windows, which shell aligns better with modern tooling, cross-platform tutorials, and the Unix‑centric flow many developers expect? The short answer is why I, and many developers, prefer WSL for interactive and development-focused command-line work.
PowerShell intentionally departs from that model by making the pipeline carry structured objects that retain type and metadata as they transit the pipeline. That design is powerful for Windows administration tasks — you can pipe a list of rich process objects into a cmdlet that expects a process object and not worry about parsing text — but it’s conceptually different from the Unix world and therefore adds a learning curve for anyone used to classic shells. Microsoft documentation explicitly teaches that PowerShell passes objects through the pipeline rather than plain text.
If you care about portability, being able to open a tutorial and follow the commands verbatim, or maintaining parity with Linux server environments, WSL is the pragmatic choice on Windows desktops. If your work centers on Windows infrastructure or you need to orchestrate Windows APIs securely and consistently, PowerShell deserves to be the primary tool in your kit. Most developers benefit from being fluent in both: use each tool where its strengths matter most and lean on WSL when your work is Linux‑centric and on PowerShell when your work is Windows‑centric.
In short: WSL brings the Unix philosophy and developer-first toolchain right onto Windows in a way that maps directly to the majority of modern development workflows — which is why, for interactive development, I still reach for WSL first.
Source: How-To Geek Why I Prefer WSL Over PowerShell for the Windows Command Line
Background / Overview
Microsoft introduced native Bash on Windows in 2016 with the Windows Subsystem for Linux, a project explicitly aimed at bringing Linux developer tools to Windows without a heavy VM. The goal was to make Windows a better developer workstation by letting users run native Linux command-line tools alongside Windows apps. Over the years WSL has evolved — WSL2 brought a real Linux kernel in a lightweight VM to dramatically improve compatibility and performance, and WSLg added integrated GUI support for Linux apps. Microsoft has continued to invest in WSL as a first-class developer feature, even moving parts of the WSL project to open-source to accelerate community contributions. (blogs.windows.com, devblogs.microsoft.com)PowerShell, by contrast, is the native Microsoft shell and scripting language that has matured from a Windows-only, .NET‑Framework-based tool into a cross-platform, open-source project now distributed as PowerShell 7.x. Its design centers on structured objects (PSObjects) flowing through pipelines instead of plain text streams. Microsoft positioned PowerShell as a powerful administrative and automation framework, and has integrated it deeply into Windows tooling — even making it the default option in some UI contexts where Command Prompt used to sit. (devblogs.microsoft.com, support.microsoft.com)
Both approaches are legitimate. The question is: for day‑to‑day developer work on Windows, which shell aligns better with modern tooling, cross-platform tutorials, and the Unix‑centric flow many developers expect? The short answer is why I, and many developers, prefer WSL for interactive and development-focused command-line work.
Why WSL Feels Like Home
I’m more comfortable with the Unix model
The Unix command-line model is built around text streams, small composable programs, and the practice of piping output from one command into another. That text-filter model — capture, transform, and feed text — is the lingua franca of countless tutorials, one‑liners, and shell scripts. It’s also the basis for decades of tooling and documentation. The classic rules of the Unix philosophy explicitly encourage programs to accept and emit text streams so they can be chained together. That expectation shapes how the majority of open-source CLI tools behave.PowerShell intentionally departs from that model by making the pipeline carry structured objects that retain type and metadata as they transit the pipeline. That design is powerful for Windows administration tasks — you can pipe a list of rich process objects into a cmdlet that expects a process object and not worry about parsing text — but it’s conceptually different from the Unix world and therefore adds a learning curve for anyone used to classic shells. Microsoft documentation explicitly teaches that PowerShell passes objects through the pipeline rather than plain text.
The developer mindshare is Unix-like
When developers publish a tutorial or a quick snippet, it commonly assumes a Unix-like shell. Books, blog posts, sample code, and package install instructions usually use bash/zsh conventions and show examples with a$ prompt. Stack Overflow’s developer surveys show that, while Windows remains a dominant desktop OS for developers, a large fraction either uses Linux directly or uses WSL as their development environment — meaning the broader developer ecosystem expects Linux-compatible tools. That ecosystem bias makes it easier and faster to follow along in a native Linux shell on Windows than to translate examples into PowerShell idioms. Tool availability and first-class Linux support
Many modern CLI utilities and developer tools are developed, tested, and first released on Linux. Even when Windows ports exist, the Linux version is often the primary reference. Projects that depend on POSIX semantics, standard shell utilities, or Linux-specific build systems are simply easier to run unmodified inside WSL. Microsoft recognized this reality when it introduced WSL: the feature was built specifically to let developers use Linux-first tools directly on Windows.Practical Advantages of WSL on Windows
Real Linux environment with Windows access
WSL (especially WSL2) runs a real Linux userland and, in the case of WSL2, a real Linux kernel in a lightweight VM. That means binaries behave like they do on a typical Linux desktop or server, including correct system-call behavior and kernel features that matter to development and tooling. WSL provides interoperability with the Windows file system through the /mnt/* mount points so you can work with Windows files from inside Linux. Microsoft’s guidance recommends keeping active development files inside the Linux filesystem for the best performance, but the point remains: you can reach into Windows from Linux and vice versa. (devblogs.microsoft.com, learn.microsoft.com)Seamless Windows ↔ Linux interoperability
WSL implements an interop layer so you can launch Windows programs from the Linux shell (for example, running notepad.exe directly from bash), and you can call Linux binaries from Windows command prompts. That two‑way interop is mature and convenient for hybrid workflows where you use Linux tools for build/test and Windows apps for GUI tasks. The technical plumbing — a binfmt interpreter and secure interop servers — is part of the WSL runtime, and the community documentation explains both functionality and configuration knobs. There are edge cases and occasional limitations (for example, some special container path interactions), but the base feature works well for the typical developer workflow. (devblogs.microsoft.com, wsl.dev)Rapid access to Linux-first development stacks
If you follow a Linux‑oriented tutorial — installing a language runtime, configuring a package manager, running makefiles, or invoking system utilities — WSL is a drop-in environment that will usually “just work.” On a new Windows machine I can run apt, use system packages, and reproduce the same steps a tutorial shows on Ubuntu or Fedora without rewriting commands to PowerShell equivalents.WSL2’s compatibility and performance improvements
WSL2 introduced a full Linux kernel (hosted in a lightweight virtual machine) which dramatically improved system-call compatibility and often showed better performance for many workloads compared to earlier translation-based approaches. Docker Desktop’s decision to use WSL2 as its default backend for Windows is further proof that WSL2’s model is robust and performant for containerized development.Why PowerShell Still Matters — And Where It Wins
Objects, not text — for good reason
PowerShell’s primary technical differentiator is its object-based pipeline. When your job is managing Windows systems, objects are an enormous productivity multiplier: you get typed results with properties and methods, tab completion for object fields, and cmdlets built around system objects. For automation and administrative tasks that touch WMI, Event Logs, registry keys, or Active Directory, PowerShell is often the right tool. Microsoft’s documentation and training modules make this object-pipeline model explicit and provide examples of how pipeline binding works.Cross-platform PowerShell is real
Microsoft open‑sourced PowerShell (the Core/7 line) and made it cross‑platform in 2016 and beyond. PowerShell 7 continues to evolve, bringing productivity and modernization to the shell itself (for example, PSReadLine enhancements and ANSI styling). If you standardize on pwsh scripts across environments, PowerShell can serve as a single scripting platform across Windows, macOS, and Linux. That cross-platform capability is a significant engineering achievement and a solid argument for choosing PowerShell for cross‑environment automation.Deep Windows integration
PowerShell remains the most natural way to do certain Windows‑centric tasks. Microsoft has integrated PowerShell into Windows in places where admin operations are the primary concern — the Win+X menu and system management tooling are examples. For administrative tasks on Windows servers and desktops, PowerShell often offers the most direct, supported path.Technical Deep Dive: How WSL and PowerShell Differ Under the Hood
WSL architecture at a glance
- WSL1 translated Linux system calls into Windows kernel calls using a compatibility layer.
- WSL2 runs a full Linux kernel in a lightweight virtual machine, providing near-native system-call compatibility and improved behavior for many Linux tools.
- WSL includes components like wsl.exe, the distro userlands (Ubuntu, Debian, etc.), the Plan 9‑based filesystem bridge used for sharing files, and optional WSLg for GUI integration. Microsoft now ships many WSL components via the Store and has open-sourced key parts of the project. (devblogs.microsoft.com, blogs.windows.com)
The ConPTY story and terminal compatibility
One of the historical pains for Windows was the lack of a modern pseudoterminal API. The Windows Console team eventually introduced the Windows Pseudo Console (ConPTY) API which enabled third‑party terminals and terminal‑oriented applications to interoperate with the Windows command-line ecosystem. ConPTY was influenced by the desire to improve compatibility for terminal-based applications — including those coming from the Linux world — and it enabled better integration between terminal emulators and console applications. That work reduced friction for ports of terminal apps and paved the way for richer terminals on Windows (including Windows Terminal). The ConPTY and pseudoconsole APIs are documented by Microsoft and were explicitly presented as a foundational change in the Windows command-line story. (devblogs.microsoft.com, learn.microsoft.com)Interop mechanics: launching Windows exes from WSL
WSL implements an interop mechanism that lets you run Windows executables from the Linux environment. It registers a binfmt interpreter and uses a secure interop server model to request Windows create and manage the Windows process on behalf of the WSL session. This is why you can run notepad.exe or explorer.exe directly from bash. There are, however, edge cases — container-mounted paths and some scenarios in which launching Windows executables fails or behaves unexpectedly are tracked in the WSL GitHub issues. For everyday development work this interop is extremely useful; for edge-case container or custom path scenarios you may need workarounds. (wsl.dev, github.com)Filesystem performance considerations
A recurring performance guideline from Microsoft is to keep active, frequently accessed project files in the Linux filesystem when you’re developing inside WSL, rather than working directly on /mnt/c (the mounted Windows filesystem). Cross‑filesystem I/O is slower and can introduce surprising behavior. For the best developer experience, follow the “work in the appropriate filesystem” guidance: Windows tooling on the Windows filesystem, Linux tooling in WSL’s Linux filesystem.Practical Guidance: When to Use WSL vs PowerShell
- Development workflow using Linux-first tools (node, python in Linux, make, autotools, GNU utilities): use WSL. It will avoid translation issues and is the most compatible environment for Linux‑centric instructions.
- Cross‑platform scripting that must run on Windows and macOS/Linux and can rely on pwsh: consider PowerShell Core (pwsh) for a single scripting language. PowerShell 7 is mature and cross‑platform.
- Windows administration, Exchange/AD/Group Policy‑centric automation: use Windows PowerShell modules and cmdlets — they’re the supported path for many Microsoft server products.
- Mixed workflows: use both. Run your builds and development tools in WSL, and use PowerShell for privileged Windows configuration or automation tasks that require Windows APIs. WSL ↔ PowerShell interop makes this seamless in day‑to‑day use. (devblogs.microsoft.com, learn.microsoft.com)
Strengths and Weaknesses — A Balanced Assessment
Strengths of choosing WSL as your primary shell
- High compatibility with Linux tools and build systems.
- Portability of knowledge — skills and one‑liners from Linux and macOS translate directly.
- Ecosystem alignment — large body of tutorials, packages, and open-source tools assume a Unix environment.
- Seamless UI integration — you can launch Windows apps from WSL and access Windows files when needed.
Risks and trade-offs of a WSL-first approach
- Performance traps when mixing filesystems: working across /mnt can be slower and may produce unexpected results; Microsoft recommends working in the native WSL filesystem for heavy development I/O.
- Edge-case interop limits: certain path or container scenarios can break Windows‑exe launches from WSL; community GitHub issues show active but non-trivial edge cases. Administrators and power users should test their specific workflows.
- Security and policy: in tightly controlled enterprise environments, WSL may be restricted by Group Policy or by OS imaging. Some organizations favor PowerShell because it’s the supported, Microsoft‑centric automation platform.
- Fragmentation for newcomers: introducing both PowerShell and WSL to a team can split knowledge; pick a primary standard in teams to reduce cognitive friction.
PowerShell’s advantages and risks
- Advantage: PowerShell is the best tool for Windows administration and automation that relies on object models and Microsoft APIs.
- Advantage: The object pipeline reduces brittle text parsing for many administrative workflows.
- Risk: For non‑Windows targets or Linux-first examples, PowerShell requires translation and can be slower to receive tooling that's native to Linux. In practice many open-source CLI projects prioritize Linux builds and shells first. (devblogs.microsoft.com, blogs.windows.com)
How to Combine Both — A Practical Workflow
- Install Windows Terminal and configure profiles for both PowerShell and your WSL distro. Use Windows Terminal as your single launcher to keep sessions organized.
- Keep code and fast‑I/O projects in the WSL distro’s filesystem (~/project). Use your editor (VS Code or another IDE) with remote WSL support to edit code directly in the WSL environment.
- Use PowerShell (pwsh) for Windows‑side automation and WSL bash/zsh for development tasks. When needed, call into one from the other — run a PowerShell script that triggers builds in WSL, or invoke a Windows tool from a WSL script to open a generated artifact.
- For scripts that must run across platforms, evaluate PowerShell Core (pwsh) as a cross‑platform scripting language; for shell‑centric, pipe‑oriented tasks, keep bash scripts in WSL. (learn.microsoft.com, github.com)
Final Takeaway
Choosing WSL over PowerShell for the Windows command line is less about rejecting PowerShell and more about aligning the shell with the ecosystem you need to work in. For interactive development, reproducible tutorials, and Linux-first toolchains, WSL gives you the environment the community expects — a full Linux userland, fast tooling, and predictable behavior. PowerShell is not irrelevant: it remains the best choice for Windows administration, object-based automation, and cross‑platform scripting with PowerShell Core.If you care about portability, being able to open a tutorial and follow the commands verbatim, or maintaining parity with Linux server environments, WSL is the pragmatic choice on Windows desktops. If your work centers on Windows infrastructure or you need to orchestrate Windows APIs securely and consistently, PowerShell deserves to be the primary tool in your kit. Most developers benefit from being fluent in both: use each tool where its strengths matter most and lean on WSL when your work is Linux‑centric and on PowerShell when your work is Windows‑centric.
In short: WSL brings the Unix philosophy and developer-first toolchain right onto Windows in a way that maps directly to the majority of modern development workflows — which is why, for interactive development, I still reach for WSL first.
Source: How-To Geek Why I Prefer WSL Over PowerShell for the Windows Command Line
