I've never understood the need for fish. The shell experience is basically the same as zsh, and although it's much more pleasant to script for, you miss out on compatibility with POSIX-compliant snippets, and besides, if you're writing long and complicated scripts that need anything more than a handful of scalar variables you should probably be using Python (or Perl if you're an old-school masochist).
FreeIPA is fine, and I don’t care much about the GPO aspect of Active Directory. But the standardization-by-ubiquity that made it easy for everyone to just follow along and make it so it Just Works has been a godsend.
Yes Microsoft built on the shoulders of giants but trying to make things work with OpenLDAP or the other also-ran directory services was a nightmare.
It's much better now, I put off moving from cmd until somewhere around 2015 when I was using 'invoke-command' constantly, over the last decade or so I've moved to powershell proper cmdlets... Its actually not that bad.
You explode lists manually into items when calling commands on a variable list of arguments instead of “quoting variables” to prevent them from exploding.
Who came up with the bullshit idea that exploding strings into words is such a common use case that this footgun is preferable to have an “explode lists” syntax?
Errors. No more set -euo pipefail; shopt -s lastpipe to beat some semblance of sanity into bash
One of the things I really like about PowerShell is the "verb-noun" convention. It makes things a lot easier when learning by examples. Wtf is a sed or an awk? But New-Item -Type Directory oh yeah that makes sense.
alias Da-boom-da-da-mmm-dum-na-ee-ma="sudo rm -rf /"
(I don't think it actually works this way in ksh but I already spent 10 minutes trying to figure out the command to get root privileges in ksh and that's already too much time for this dumb joke.)
When is this a problem? What scripts don't use a shebang and/or why does using sh call fish instead of bash or dash?
I have a mild dislike of fish because a few substitutions are different enough that my muscle memory isn't there. (But I also haven't put in serious effort to learn them.)
Have you run into a specific problem or is this just a hypothetical you're worried about. I see this a lot but haven't ever actually run into it being a concern. If you run a script with #!/bin/sh from a Fish shell, it won't use Fish, it will use whatever you have sh pointing to. (Which shouldn't be Fish, it's usually bash or dash.)
Ah, I see. If you don't remember, don't sweat. I'm mostly curious just because posix issues is one of the few complaints I hear but I never see anything specific so I'm extremely curious lol. Please don't mistake this as one of those fanboyism moments where people try to say something they like is actually perfect and doesn't have flaws.
My understanding of shebangs is that it isn't your shell doing anything fancy with it, it's your OS (or something, I don't remember exactly, but it's lower level than the shell). So maybe something else borked. But I'm no fish expert, I have some error in some fish thing that prints an error every time I open a new shell that I'm too lazy to troubleshoot lol.
Linux doesn’t generally use extensions to decide what shell to use, so it doesn’t matter if it’s an sh file or not.
If it uses bash of course you can substitute #!/bin/bash
And of course you can use whatever shell you want, just saying that POSIX-compliance is not really relevant since the script can specify what shell it needs.
The file extension doesn't matter much on Linux. If you've got a shebang at the top, the shell you're running from will invoke the correct shell according to the shebang.
In some situations, you may want to use something like bash <your-script>, but that would only be when you've got a script that doesn't have a shebang, but not having one is bad practice and you really should be using them. Fish isn't the only non-POSIX shell you're going to encounter on a Linux system. Python, Perl, and probably some others will be there, and using a shebang ensures no shenanigans. So whether or not you use Fish, you should always use shebangs.
Our last apartment had a microwave that insisted that the off/cancel button was ONLY for the microwave part and NOT the timer part, and if you tried to use it to turn off the timer, would display a message saying "push timer button to turn timer off" (or smth to that effect). I found it infuriating. I told my wife, "if they can program it to sass me, they can program it to turn the damn timer off."
I just wish my local restaurant would accept burger orders in addition.
Like, if you can warn me that "this is a Chinese noodle restaurant, we don't do burger here. Order one of these instead!" then you could also just, you know, make me a burger!
No, it'd be like, when you asked them do you know what a burger is? They pointed at a picture of a burger on the wall (they put this picture on the wall because for whatever reason people kept asking them to make burgers), and told you, of course we know what a burger is, we don't make them, now order noodles or get out!
Okay, you know what... That's actually better than what I said. Defeat acknowledged.
(However, it still seems a bit silly to me. name="value" will prompt you to enter set name "value", with your exact name/value prefilled. As far as I know, it really is just syntax substitution; or am I wrong here? Are there semantic differences that can't be translated?)
i think it could be a slippery slope thing. things like name="value" are easy to parse and implement, but then what if people keep asking for a little bit more, and a little bit more again? bash's syntax is very very complex, there will be no winners if fish has a half-assed implementation of what bash does, it's better to not even start.
No, I'm really happy with fish in general and use its syntax. The only times are things like e.g. a coworker sending me a 3-line script and then not being able to just copy, paste, enter.
I used a macbook for work for a while with zsh in the terminal. IDK whether I qualify as emo, but I am nerdy. I only think of myself as regular nerdy, though, not extra nerdy.
I had to go back and check. Apple says that the default changed from bash to zsh in Catalina (10.15). I seem to recall a message coming up on the machine about zsh. I definitely remember poking around at config files and looking at iTerm2 vs. the default terminal app at the time.
Does that make me extra nerdy? IDK. I can tell you that I was more focused on "What's going to be comfortable to work with" vs. nerding out on shell differences.
I do miss homebrew now that I'm working on a Windows laptop.
Good luck! No huge loss if it doesn't work though, at least in my opinion. I like it for finding and installing software, and bulk upgrading everything at once, and the ability to do it all remotely with relative ease. But it's not as powerful in terms of dependency management and whatnot, coming from POSIX package managers
Maybe I remember wrong, but my memory is that at one point MacOS had zsh as the default and then switched to BASH, and then maybe back to zsh again. But, since Internet search is broken these days, I can't find anything about that.
All I can really tell you is that I remember seeing a message about the new default being zsh, and that was back in 2020 or maybe 2021. So it def switched from something else to zsh, but whether it was bash -> zsh or zsh -> bash -> zsh...shrug
A good zsh setup is not better. That’s why I switched off of zsh after years, because it was slower, more bloated, and less intuitive than fish. And bash is ten times worse than zsh.
Huh, the more you know. My only experience with ZSH is when I briefly used Manjaro, and it seemed fine at the time... but now that I say that I think about it, "Manjaro defaulting to it," might have been a bit of a red flag...
Yeah to get the same setup in zsh you have to install a plugin manager and then quite a number of plugins. Most people default to omz (oh my zsh) but that’s the slowest way. If you pick through all the managers you can get a decent one, but even without a manager the overhead of loading plugins is just slower than building it in like fish does. Fish just is better. And I don’t think I’ve ever once needed posix syntax. If I need to run a script and it doesn’t have a shebang at the start then I just run > bash and start the script there.
lol yeah. Like I thought I needed all this crazy stuff tacked on when in reality I just wanted sane defaults. The only thing I add to fish now is the spaceship prompt.
I use bash because gentoo's portage has a hard dependency on it so in my mind it doesn't make much sense to install and keep yet another shell just because colors and autocompletion. If they ever get rid of the bashisms in portage I'd surely consider moving to fish, but getting rid of the bashisms in portage means that portage could be ported to the BSDs one more time and we could have Gentoo/BSD again
I use fish because it was the default in cachyos and decided to give it a fair shake. I like the built in syntax highlighting and fancy autocomplete but I miss bash scripting and built in commands that replace standard commands can be weird sometimes. I have not tried scripting fish, to lazy to learn yet another scripting language, especially if bash is the (almost) de-facto standard.
I've been using it for awhile now for the same reason, and think I'm going to switch back to sh as it has too many suggestions which I read and it interrupts my thoughts and slows me down.
I like it (am actually sponsoring) but I'm not sure development is still active. I hope the author finds the time and energy to work on it again it's someone else picks it up
Sometimes I think I'm the only linux user who doesn't care about their terminal emulator. I use whatever came installed. I assume it's bash? I don't know, but anything i want to do is supported by all of them.
The terminal emulator is the window displaying the text. That used to be a physical screen called a terminal. The program that decides what text to show is the shell.
A terminal emulator (such as xterm, tmux, or emacs) is responsible for displaying a pseudoterminal in a different context (such as an x server, another terminal, or an emacs buffer respectively). Terminals are divided into three types: virtual terminals (on boot or as presented by [C-]A-F<N>), ‘true’ terminals (exposed on serial ports), and pseudoterminals (controlled by other programs). Essentially, you have a virtual terminal running X running Xterm which controls a pseudoterminal with tmux attached controlling another pseudoterminal.
Login shells are a special flag set when launching shells, sometimes. They typically read different settings (e.g. Bash reads ~/.bash_profile instead of ~/.bashrc). Most shells will launch as a login shell if their command name (argv[0]) begins with a hyphen; Bash also allows explicit bash -l to run a login shell.
Fish is the best . Do not listen what other says just because it's easy to use does not make it a bad tool
Also helix better then neovim and emacs
And zellij better then tmux
Micro better then nano
Jj better then git A LOT
JJ lacks too many features compared to git, it's easier to use but just less powerful. I think Helix and Zellij are good for that "batteries included" approach, but neovim and tmux are more powerful and allow much more customization IMO so those tools don't displace them for me. I think shell choices are less impactful, if you're writing scripts 90% of the time it'll have to be bash anyway, use what you like for the interactive shell though.
Huh. Alt+s. I forgot about that. I think maybe something in my tmux config makes it not work. Not to worry, I've made use of fish's abbreviations, and have other nice things, like I type tssr and space, and it types out "time sudo strat -r " for me.
Well over a decade using fish, and still finding new treats. It's so cushy out of the box, without even trying to learn it, it's easy to miss that there's so much more. I only started using abbr in the past year or so.
I'm ok with that part, I'm talking more performance and convenience.
POSIX isn't the most amazing but it's ok. And whether I like it or not, I'll have to use a posix-compatible shell if I want to run most scripts.
I luckily don't have to modify scripts these days so I'll just use bash to run them if there's no better alternative around. And usually it is, few things are only available as bespoke shell script
Funny story, in my first years of Linux, I always thought sh was the only way to run downloaded programs in the terminal. I must have seen it on some forum and learned it that way. Much later I learned that I could just type this ./program and run them.
I'm so loving it although I'm still having to correct me on even the easiest shit (few hours ago l: invocation with an env var set tona path - "oh right spaces, oh right, path must be in quotes".
I had nu on my Windows PC and I thought I could get away with it because I hate PowerShell so much, but then IT came and kicked it into quarantine. Now I'm zsh-ing on wsl.
you can run bash scripts in fish. The syntax is bash ./script.sh
Edit: I'm being unhelpful/funny. I just read through the fish manual, and it's so nice and agree that if it was just a bit more bash friendly it would have great uptake
Almost nobody cares about these features for new shells. POSIX compatibility in my opinion is an anti-feature for interactive shells; for scripts, use the shell referenced in the shebang. There are even newer POSIX compatible shells like oil if you want one of these.
I guess I'm chad. bash ftw. every time. also, this is how you exit vim :q! lol j/k save first tho :wq but really just leave it open and ctrl-z and fg ffs
184 replies
(Sorry for using Fëanor; he's simply the prettiest).
edit: https://elv.sh/
I've never understood the need for
fish. The shell experience is basically the same aszsh, and although it's much more pleasant to script for, you miss out on compatibility with POSIX-compliant snippets, and besides, if you're writing long and complicated scripts that need anything more than a handful of scalar variables you should probably be using Python (or Perl if you're an old-school masochist).telnet
⚰️
Get-OutOfHere
Powershell is probably simultaneously the best and worst thing Microsoft has ever created
Second best. The best was Active Directory.
Tell that to the Linux folks
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/26521372
I am the Linux folks.
FreeIPA is fine, and I don’t care much about the GPO aspect of Active Directory. But the standardization-by-ubiquity that made it easy for everyone to just follow along and make it so it Just Works has been a godsend.
Yes Microsoft built on the shoulders of giants but trying to make things work with OpenLDAP or the other also-ran directory services was a nightmare.
I remember powershell being extremely slow to start on my laptop and sometimes slow to catch up to my typing (and I'm a slooow typist).
tbf it was the win 8.1 days, dunno if it's better now.
Really liked using it tho. At least it used my actual keyboard layout, unlike cmd.
It's much better now, I put off moving from cmd until somewhere around 2015 when I was using 'invoke-command' constantly, over the last decade or so I've moved to powershell proper cmdlets... Its actually not that bad.
It’s better now
Then give nushell a go. It's basically a modern implementation of some of the better ideas Powershell had.
What were those?
Types.
You explode lists manually into items when calling commands on a variable list of arguments instead of “quoting variables” to prevent them from exploding.
Who came up with the bullshit idea that exploding strings into words is such a common use case that this footgun is preferable to have an “explode lists” syntax?
Errors. No more
set -euo pipefail; shopt -s lastpipeto beat some semblance of sanity into bashOne of the things I really like about PowerShell is the "verb-noun" convention. It makes things a lot easier when learning by examples. Wtf is a
sedor anawk? ButNew-Item -Type Directoryoh yeah that makes sense.To be fair, the comparison there is
mkdirwhich means make directory, but I don't doubt there are better examples.This but unironically
It even kind of suck as a Windows-only shell...
Honestly it’s pretty good, but it’s very verbose in its commands and output.
The default settings are irritating but it takes only minor tweaks to make it tolerable (mainly fixing the tab completion)
It’s nicely consistent with its object handling.
As a windows shell it is head and shoulders above cmd.exe. I’ve thought about using it on Linux but there I like fish better.
Unironically though. It takes time because it's structurally different than python but it's fun when you figure it out
Big oof
The Web site for fish reads:
Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
I love them and always will.
Thompson shell (predates Bourne)
scsh (Scheme shell) and closh (Clojure shell)
sash (stand-alone shell)
gash (Guile shell)
ash (Almquist shell)
dash (Debian Almquist shell)
eshell (Emacs shell)
Shells I couldn't think of images for:
love the ash image lol
In case you don't know how to crop an image... but yeah, me too. This is peak.
LOL what the heck is the source of this, it's so surreal, people just chilling shooting hoops in the background XD
ash, shares shared history with dash, integrated into busybox, default shell in alpine
toybox's shell, toybox's equivalent of busybox's ash
tcsh, a shell often found in BSDs for interactive usage by default
I've got ash, and tcsh is mentioned by someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KornShell
alias Da-boom-da-da-mmm-dum-na-ee-ma="sudo rm -rf /"(I don't think it actually works this way in ksh but I already spent 10 minutes trying to figure out the command to get root privileges in ksh and that's already too much time for this dumb joke.)
Works in ksh93 and mksh. Probably oksh and posh, too.
I remember making that joke on Lemmy and someone calling me immature lol.
The creator of kornshell thought it was funny http://kornshell.com/fun/
I'm immature then with you!
A.D.I.D.A.S with a Freak on a Leash
That's what they looked like???
i am using ZSH cause Fish is not POSIX compliant,which made it annoying to run scripts without rewriting them.
When is this a problem? What scripts don't use a shebang and/or why does using
shcall fish instead of bash or dash?I have a mild dislike of fish because a few substitutions are different enough that my muscle memory isn't there. (But I also haven't put in serious effort to learn them.)
I think they don't use shebang
Have you run into a specific problem or is this just a hypothetical you're worried about. I see this a lot but haven't ever actually run into it being a concern. If you run a script with
#!/bin/shfrom a Fish shell, it won't use Fish, it will use whatever you haveshpointing to. (Which shouldn't be Fish, it's usually bash or dash.)I ran into issues on fish,i don't remember what they are but I think it's no shebang
Ah, I see. If you don't remember, don't sweat. I'm mostly curious just because posix issues is one of the few complaints I hear but I never see anything specific so I'm extremely curious lol. Please don't mistake this as one of those fanboyism moments where people try to say something they like is actually perfect and doesn't have flaws.
My understanding of shebangs is that it isn't your shell doing anything fancy with it, it's your OS (or something, I don't remember exactly, but it's lower level than the shell). So maybe something else borked. But I'm no fish expert, I have some error in some fish thing that prints an error every time I open a new shell that I'm too lazy to troubleshoot lol.
#!/bin/sh
Hope this helps
how about if its not in a sh file,its common for scripts to use sh or bash instead. but am just gonna stick to ZSH anyways
Linux doesn’t generally use extensions to decide what shell to use, so it doesn’t matter if it’s an sh file or not.
If it uses bash of course you can substitute #!/bin/bash
And of course you can use whatever shell you want, just saying that POSIX-compliance is not really relevant since the script can specify what shell it needs.
The file extension doesn't matter much on Linux. If you've got a shebang at the top, the shell you're running from will invoke the correct shell according to the shebang.
In some situations, you may want to use something like
bash <your-script>, but that would only be when you've got a script that doesn't have a shebang, but not having one is bad practice and you really should be using them. Fish isn't the only non-POSIX shell you're going to encounter on a Linux system. Python, Perl, and probably some others will be there, and using a shebang ensures no shenanigans. So whether or not you use Fish, you should always use shebangs.imo fish is the best out of the box for me, but I just use bash cause its everywhere
I just wish fish would accept standard bash syntax in addition.
Like, if you can warn me that "this is not how we set vars in fish, do this instead!" then you could also just, you know, do it.
Our last apartment had a microwave that insisted that the off/cancel button was ONLY for the microwave part and NOT the timer part, and if you tried to use it to turn off the timer, would display a message saying "push timer button to turn timer off" (or smth to that effect). I found it infuriating. I told my wife, "if they can program it to sass me, they can program it to turn the damn timer off."
Anyway. I get it.
yea but the posix sh set syntax is atrocious so not supporting it is doing you a favor
It's Stockholm syndrome
I mean who doesn't like putting mandatory quotes around all variables (though exceptions, like in
[[ ... ]], apply)?Or keywords like
fiandesacor worrying about $IFSfi and esac but not rof or elihw
smh my head
No od either
bash could really have improved things by giving us noitcnuf.
I support this amendment.
But it’s so clever!
I just wish my local restaurant would accept burger orders in addition.
Like, if you can warn me that "this is a Chinese noodle restaurant, we don't do burger here. Order one of these instead!" then you could also just, you know, make me a burger!
That analogy only holds if they cook the burger for you, hold it in front of you, and go "we don't make this", then throwing it out
No, it'd be like, when you asked them do you know what a burger is? They pointed at a picture of a burger on the wall (they put this picture on the wall because for whatever reason people kept asking them to make burgers), and told you, of course we know what a burger is, we don't make them, now order noodles or get out!
Okay, you know what... That's actually better than what I said. Defeat acknowledged.
(However, it still seems a bit silly to me.
name="value"will prompt you to enterset name "value", with your exact name/value prefilled. As far as I know, it really is just syntax substitution; or am I wrong here? Are there semantic differences that can't be translated?)i think it could be a slippery slope thing. things like
name="value"are easy to parse and implement, but then what if people keep asking for a little bit more, and a little bit more again? bash's syntax is very very complex, there will be no winners if fish has a half-assed implementation of what bash does, it's better to not even start.you, I like you. Let's bang!
So you want to bash fish like some kind of sicko?
No, I'm really happy with fish in general and use its syntax. The only times are things like e.g. a coworker sending me a 3-line script and then not being able to just copy, paste, enter.
Is joke
Yeah, that's where this meme fails. BASH is the default and has been for decades. Most people are not Gigachad.
I'll accept FISH as being for babies, Zsh as being for Emo types or extra nerdy people. SH being for white beards makes sense.
BASH is:
I used a macbook for work for a while with zsh in the terminal. IDK whether I qualify as emo, but I am nerdy. I only think of myself as regular nerdy, though, not extra nerdy.
Was zsh the default at the time? Or did you switch to zsh? AFAIK the new default is BASH, but it was zsh for a while.
IMO, your level of nerdiness is much higher if you change the default shell.
I had to go back and check. Apple says that the default changed from bash to zsh in Catalina (10.15). I seem to recall a message coming up on the machine about zsh. I definitely remember poking around at config files and looking at iTerm2 vs. the default terminal app at the time.
Does that make me extra nerdy? IDK. I can tell you that I was more focused on "What's going to be comfortable to work with" vs. nerding out on shell differences.
I do miss homebrew now that I'm working on a Windows laptop.
wingetm'boyOoh, worth a try. I'm not sure whether I have the necessary permissions, though. My work laptop is pretty locked down.
Good luck! No huge loss if it doesn't work though, at least in my opinion. I like it for finding and installing software, and bulk upgrading everything at once, and the ability to do it all remotely with relative ease. But it's not as powerful in terms of dependency management and whatnot, coming from POSIX package managers
Maybe I remember wrong, but my memory is that at one point MacOS had zsh as the default and then switched to BASH, and then maybe back to zsh again. But, since Internet search is broken these days, I can't find anything about that.
All I can really tell you is that I remember seeing a message about the new default being zsh, and that was back in 2020 or maybe 2021. So it def switched from something else to zsh, but whether it was bash -> zsh or zsh -> bash -> zsh...shrug
Yeah, I agree. It's quirky, its syntax is annoying, and a good ZSH setup is probably better... but I don't have the time to do an actual ZSH setup.
A good zsh setup is not better. That’s why I switched off of zsh after years, because it was slower, more bloated, and less intuitive than fish. And bash is ten times worse than zsh.
Huh, the more you know. My only experience with ZSH is when I briefly used Manjaro, and it seemed fine at the time... but now that I say that I think about it, "Manjaro defaulting to it," might have been a bit of a red flag...
Yeah to get the same setup in zsh you have to install a plugin manager and then quite a number of plugins. Most people default to omz (oh my zsh) but that’s the slowest way. If you pick through all the managers you can get a decent one, but even without a manager the overhead of loading plugins is just slower than building it in like fish does. Fish just is better. And I don’t think I’ve ever once needed posix syntax. If I need to run a script and it doesn’t have a shebang at the start then I just run > bash and start the script there.
Yup, that sounds exactly like what I do.
lol yeah. Like I thought I needed all this crazy stuff tacked on when in reality I just wanted sane defaults. The only thing I add to fish now is the spaceship prompt.
I'm not learning shit that can't run on everything.
Source : I got a fistfull of salesforce certs in order to toe the line in my previous job, and I am currently looking for work.
I use bash because gentoo's portage has a hard dependency on it so in my mind it doesn't make much sense to install and keep yet another shell just because colors and autocompletion. If they ever get rid of the bashisms in portage I'd surely consider moving to fish, but getting rid of the bashisms in portage means that portage could be ported to the BSDs one more time and we could have Gentoo/BSD again
I use fish because it was the default in cachyos and decided to give it a fair shake. I like the built in syntax highlighting and fancy autocomplete but I miss bash scripting and built in commands that replace standard commands can be weird sometimes. I have not tried scripting fish, to lazy to learn yet another scripting language, especially if bash is the (almost) de-facto standard.
I've been using it for awhile now for the same reason, and think I'm going to switch back to sh as it has too many suggestions which I read and it interrupts my thoughts and slows me down.
I like having fish as an option, but don't think I'd ever use it as my default.
If I have a long command that uses long filenames, or I don't remember the syntax of something, I can just type "fish" and it'll open up a fish shell.
You can always just continue using bash scripting, with a bash shebang in your scripts, if you miss it
That's what I do. Fish is great as interactive shell, scripts don't benefit that much from it and I can use what's familiar.
There's probably only two people who will get this joke... and I'm one of them.
I'm the other one!
And my axe?
Do you guys accept recruits? I'd also like to know! :'3
https://elv.sh/
The tour is quite comprehensive.
considering the image is a link... idk man
That's not Link, that's Elrond!
No that's not Elrond, the princess you mean is Zelda.
isn't he the dianetics guy?
I like it (am actually sponsoring) but I'm not sure development is still active. I hope the author finds the time and energy to work on it again it's someone else picks it up
Sometimes I think I'm the only linux user who doesn't care about their terminal emulator. I use whatever came installed. I assume it's bash? I don't know, but anything i want to do is supported by all of them.
Akchually, those are shells, not terminal emulators.
Which I guess confirms that you really don't care. Whatever works for you, works for you :)
What's the difference.
How does the virtual terminal factor in.
Why are some shells not login shells
What is a terminal these days and why does it mess up keypresses
The terminal emulator is the window displaying the text. That used to be a physical screen called a terminal. The program that decides what text to show is the shell.
A terminal emulator (such as xterm, tmux, or emacs) is responsible for displaying a pseudoterminal in a different context (such as an x server, another terminal, or an emacs buffer respectively). Terminals are divided into three types: virtual terminals (on boot or as presented by [C-]A-F<N>), ‘true’ terminals (exposed on serial ports), and pseudoterminals (controlled by other programs). Essentially, you have a virtual terminal running X running Xterm which controls a pseudoterminal with tmux attached controlling another pseudoterminal.
Login shells are a special flag set when launching shells, sometimes. They typically read different settings (e.g. Bash reads ~/.bash_profile instead of ~/.bashrc). Most shells will launch as a login shell if their command name (argv[0]) begins with a hyphen; Bash also allows explicit
bash -lto run a login shell.Yesh, I'm a not spending time configuring (and fixing) the shell.
If I want something hairy I'll use Python (or even C/C++).
You might have more luck with a hamster, pythons are not hairy
do tcsh
(that's the actual current maintainer of tcsh and the linux file command lol)
Sic. I've never even tried anything other than bash, but this looks cool!
I was looking for a mention of csh! Senior sysadmin at $DAYJOB uses it still.
Pretty much the whole semiconductor engineering industry is using it. We'll actually tcsh but csh
Similarly ksh
bash:
Jesus Christ! Its json Bourne Again!
I can't begin to say how superior my fish rice is to any alternative. So I won't. And I'll leave yall to flame me for implying it.
All we ask of you is that you don't reheat it in the employee break room microwave.
Fish is the best . Do not listen what other says just because it's easy to use does not make it a bad tool Also helix better then neovim and emacs
And zellij better then tmux
Micro better then nano Jj better then git A LOT
Careful brother, they are not ready for the truth.
You lost me at "helix better than nvim and emacs"
That's the only one I could confirm, but probably because my config game is weak.
JJ lacks too many features compared to git, it's easier to use but just less powerful. I think Helix and Zellij are good for that "batteries included" approach, but neovim and tmux are more powerful and allow much more customization IMO so those tools don't displace them for me. I think shell choices are less impactful, if you're writing scripts 90% of the time it'll have to be bash anyway, use what you like for the interactive shell though.
What features is jj missing?
Git submodules and LFS. I use it for all other projects though
Correct
still don't really get along with jj. and why use a tmux-alike when konsole has the same functionality built in?
Wow, you spelled mercurial really wrong
Yes! Helix is such a good editor that doesn't get enough praise.
I think I'm using fish and it works great, I love alt+s thing and auto complete thingy.
TIL the alt+s thing
If you're not using fish:
sudo !!Yes.
But: Bash: alias please='sudo $(history -p !!)' Zsh: alias please='sudo $(fc -ln -1)'
Or if you are on ZSH: press escape twice. Does require OhMyZSH with sudo plugin.
https://github.com/nvbn/thefuck
Huh. Alt+s. I forgot about that. I think maybe something in my tmux config makes it not work. Not to worry, I've made use of fish's abbreviations, and have other nice things, like I type tssr and space, and it types out "time sudo strat -r " for me.
Well over a decade using fish, and still finding new treats. It's so cushy out of the box, without even trying to learn it, it's easy to miss that there's so much more. I only started using abbr in the past year or so.
I learned that shortcut when someone was talking about shells. I like that I learn new stuff about Linux too.
friend brought me some seashells
When I installed freeBSD for the first time, I was so confused when !! didn't work.
No such thing as a good shell... (I just want something that's both posix-compatible and good)
That's a paradox. POSIX shells are all bad because POSIX demands bad syntax.
You can have pain word strings without also having weird “variables auto-explode into words” bullshit.
That's why I use nushell. It has lists. You do
cmd ...$some_listto call a command on arguments from a list.I'm ok with that part, I'm talking more performance and convenience. POSIX isn't the most amazing but it's ok. And whether I like it or not, I'll have to use a posix-compatible shell if I want to run most scripts.
I luckily don't have to modify scripts these days so I'll just use bash to run them if there's no better alternative around. And usually it is, few things are only available as bespoke shell script
Funny story, in my first years of Linux, I always thought
shwas the only way to run downloaded programs in the terminal. I must have seen it on some forum and learned it that way. Much later I learned that I could just type this./programand run them.TBF that does often require that you
chmod +xthem. Sometimes, that's not worth the effort ...That actually makes sense. Maybe that was the reason why I saw it in the first place. Lazy people in works. :)
It's magic
https://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/rc
Nushell <3
I'm so loving it although I'm still having to correct me on even the easiest shit (few hours ago l: invocation with an env var set tona path - "oh right spaces, oh right, path must be in quotes".
Still love it, just annoyed by my habit brain
i use zsh and i've been recently told by a friend that i look like this exact guy
Heh. Good stuff.
More! ;D I want to see all the shells, characterised so.
... Fish [over[1]]user here. Ooh, good burn. LOL.
[1: Not just user. Overuser. I do most of my scripting in fish. Think that's not overuse yet? ... I even wrote my own text editor in fish.]
I use fish as my shell because it’s the easiest to work with, but I basically always script with sh or sometimes bash
I don’t use bash, bash uses me
Where's tcsh?
Came here for this.
tcsh is the bees knees.
Nerds
I had nu on my Windows PC and I thought I could get away with it because I hate PowerShell so much, but then IT came and kicked it into quarantine. Now I'm zsh-ing on wsl.
Why didn't I install nu there? Can't remember.
As a ham-handed individual , I absolutely LOVE fish shell. Started using it like 3 years ago and never looked back.
How do you deal with when the guide has commands that only work in bash
Run 'bash' and then follow the guide, assuming it's too complex to tweak for fish.
you can run bash scripts in fish. The syntax is
bash ./script.shEdit: I'm being unhelpful/funny. I just read through the fish manual, and it's so nice and agree that if it was just a bit more bash friendly it would have great uptake
bash without the bash-completion package
Meanwhile nushell is just over here getting shit done literally everywhere
It's not getting POSIX compliance done, that's for sure. Or compatibility with normal scripts.
Almost nobody cares about these features for new shells. POSIX compatibility in my opinion is an anti-feature for interactive shells; for scripts, use the shell referenced in the shebang. There are even newer POSIX compatible shells like oil if you want one of these.
I guess I'm chad. bash ftw. every time. also, this is how you exit vim :q! lol j/k save first tho :wq but really just leave it open and ctrl-z and fg ffs
ssh:
csh.
bottom right corner still
and dont forget to take your amlodipine
I feel seen.
I'm still a tcsh guy.
My trusty .tcshrc still has some aliases that have been their since the 90s.
I'm pretty sure even FreeBSD has moved on now from csh to zsh
I was gonna say tcsh, but that’s only for root. Apparently they’ve moved on to Almquist shell (sh). TIL.
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/linux-users/
Huh, I really thought it was zsh
Maybe that decision got overturned and replaced with sh prior to release
macOS switched to Zsh, replacing Bash. They also now ship pico instead of nano, for some reason.
I probably mixed them up, once upon a time they were the same OS to be fair hahaha
S is the only shell one needs.
https://github.com/rain-1/s
That is actually pretty interesting.
Tish
What about ksh?