• yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I have never really ever used bash and thought, "Man, I wish my shell was better . . . ". Using ctrl+r to recall past commands, using sudo !! to fix missing permissions and writing small bash scripts all work very well.

    That being said, if you use anything else, and you like it, I’m happy for you, but I do wonder, what leads people to other shells? What problems do they have with bash?

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      To me, it genuinely makes a huge difference that I don’t have to manually press Ctrl+R for history search. Because 9 times out of 10, I accept a history suggestion from Fish where I did not think about whether it would be in my history.

      This includes really mundane commands, like cd some/deeply/nested/path/. You would not believe, how often I want to cd into the same directory.
      But I’ve also had it where I started typing a complicated docker run command and Fish suggests the exact command I want to write, because I apparently I already ran that exact command months ago and simply forgot.

    • baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      i use bash but i also use atuin which makes shell history so much neater. that’s about the only convenience i need in a terminal shell.

    • Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I would really recommend you try fish.

      It has a lot of nice autocomplete features and handles functions much better than bash. It has a very sensible autoconfig so you can just install and try it.

      Zsh can be configured in quite a lot of ways. It’s default config is quite similar to bash.

      • ErenOnizuka@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        What does it autocomplete? Filenames? Bash can do that too, right? I just hit the tab key and it’s written there.

        And with functions you mean in scripts? How does it handle functions better?

        • Autocompletions in fish also take history into account, which saves you a lot of typing in the long run.

          Fish shell script is much more sensibly constructed than bash so it’s just much easier to write a script in fish.

    • TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Features and default settings, but its really just about preference. They are all good at what they do.

      Also im only saying this because it confused me for so long, but shell and terminal are different parts of the same thing. Bash is your shell, its the backend that runs everything you type into your terminal. My computer for example uses my kitty terminal which communicates in bash. You can change both the shell and terminal. Zsh is another shell, so it would change the “shell language” you use to communicate with your terminal.

    • kartoffelsaft@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      There can be a ton of reasons, albeit I personally also just stick with default (for me zsh). In typical linux user fashion I also must tell you that bash and zsh are shells, not terminals.

      The two main reasons you’d choose a particular shell is because you prefer it’s configurability or syntax. Zsh has a bunch of features that you can enable and you can configure it to behave basically however you want, like adding spelling correction or multiline editing, but it’s defaults absolutely suck unless your distro comes with a sensible config. Fish, which another guy here’s raved about, goes in basically the opposite direction and is really nice to use out of the box (I haven’t used it though). I hear it’s technically not a valid /bin/sh substitute like zsh or bash because of syntactic differences, but that’d be a whole other rabbit hole if true.

      One other reason can be performance concerns because bash is pretty slow when treated as a programming language, but I’d argue you shouldn’t organize your workflow so that bash is a performance bottleneck.

  • zen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I don’t mind /bin/zsh.

    Now Oh My Zsh! on the other hand can die in a hole.

  • juipeltje@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I never tried anything other than bash tbh. Not sure if i should. I never really looked into what i might be missing out on with a different shell. Bash just works so i never felt like messing around with it.

    • three@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Classic linux tribalism. Use what you like and don’t get involved with these confrontational nerds.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It’s permissively-licensed (as opposed to bash, which is GPLv3). Pushing zsh over bash is part of a larger effort by corporations to marginalize copyleft so they can more easily exploit Free Software at the users’ expense. Don’t fall for it!

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s such a shame that, if zsh gains enough critical mass, all copies of its source code will be deleted from the universe and no-one will be able to use it without paying any more.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It’s such a shame that you can’t customize the version of zsh running on your Linux-based embedded device because it’s DRM’d to prevent the modified version from being installed.

          …oh wait, that’s not sarcasm because it’s actually plausible.

          • FishFace@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Cool.

            And what, exactly, is the path from “pushing back on zsh” to “embedded device manufacturers can no longer lock down their devices?”

            • Shrubbery@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              A plausible path is precedent and normalization, not zsh specifically.

              If a widely used copyleft component (like a shell) starts being accepted as “OK to lock down” in consumer or embedded devices, manufacturers and courts get comfortable with the idea that user-modifiable software is optional rather than a right tied to distribution. Over time, that erodes enforcement of anti-tivoization principles and weakens the practical force of copyleft licenses across the stack.

              Once that norm shifts, vendors can apply the same logic to kernels, drivers, bootloaders, and userland as a whole—at which point locked-down embedded devices stop being the exception and become the default, even when the software is nominally open source.

              • FishFace@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                I don’t understand. It’s already ok to “lock down” devices, from the point of view of most consumers and the courts, regardless of the software license. Phones make it hard for you to flash new firmware onto them. That is still true with android and the open source components in its stack.

                Using bsd licensed software in every day life cannot accelerate that because it has already happened, and I don’t see how it would be otherwise, because software licensing doesn’t protect against the kind of locking down you’re talking about.

  • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I switched from bash to zsh a while ago, mostly just for shits and giggles. I really can’t see any reason to form a strong opinion on it one way or the other.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Bash is copyleft (GPLv3). Zsh is permissively-licensed.

      Apple, for instance, switched from bash to zsh when the GPL version upgraded because they wanted to withhold those rights from their users.

      Zsh should be considered harmful as a tool of corporate encroachment and subjugation of Free Software.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I went from bash to fish to zsh. I can see why people would like having fish as a shell. but I hated scripting on it and if I’m going to be triggering a different shell for scripts anyway, I might as well skip the middleman, not re-invent the wheel and just use zsh with plug-ins that way I only have two shells installed instead of three. Adding the auto-complete plugin and a theme plugin for zsh gives most of fishes base functionality and design while making it so I don’t nerd to worry about compatibility.

      Maybe someday when I’m less code oriented, I will re-look at fish, but I don’t see it happening in the foreseeable future.