3 ms·
There are lots of reasons people resisted systemd initially that had nothing to do with resisting learning a new system. Likewise with bash, what's the better
by zenlikethat 10y ago
There are lots of reasons people resisted systemd initially that had nothing to do with resisting learning a new system.
Likewise with bash, what's the better alternative? And don't say fish. Just because it bills itself as such doesn't make it an improvement. All tools have some overhead to learning them.
- JdeBP 10y agoWe don't need to hypothesize an answer. We live in a world where we can see an answer, if we know our history. People decided almost 10 years ago that there was a better way to do certain things than use the Bourne Again shell, and switched to using the Debian Almquist shell. * http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/250965/5132 http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/250965/5132
- zenlikethat 10y agoInteresting bit of history, I had assumed the parent was complaining about bash interactive shells with the usual "they're hard to use for humans" position. The link suggests that the major gain of Debian Almquist was performance.