• The article just describes the how, but gives no reasons for a why.

    So, why would anyone move away from the de-facto standard bash, except for some rare circumstances like having a small system and using busybox?

    • Fish is actually user friendly and easy to learn. The interactive completions are better than any other shell and are something I don’t want to live without.

      It differs from bash in some esoteric ways, but any issues you might encounter as a result are easily worked around by putting shebangs in your scrips, which you should be doing anyway, and bash -c 'your command'.

      Honorable mention for nushell, but that one differs from bash a little too much to pick up quickly. However, having an object-oriented shell is pretty sick.

    • Because you’re bored. It says so right in the title.

      Personally I don’t see the point of changing the shell either. Bash is more than good enough for my use and any other shell is going to have the disadvantage of not being the ubiquitous standard so it is always going to have an uphill battle to dislodge bash.

      That said, if people want to play around with a new shell just for the sake of it, why not? I like to play around with exotic window managers myself, not because my regular plasma desktop doesn’t suffice, but because I like to try something different every now and then.

  •  crank   ( @crank@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    47 months ago

    Ive been using zsh for most of my linux time cause it is trendy.

    Im actually planning a move to bash. All else being equal, i prefer gpl-style to mit-style. (Tried fish didnt like it.)

    Dyk the “monopoly man” illustration was created by the grandparent of the original developer of bash? And was uncredited by the company who owns Monopoly until a relative publicized this recently.