4 ms·

> I would be annoyed if fish was installed on all our prod boxes, for example. Why?

• giancarlostoro 9y ago
  Wondering the same when you consider you don't have to login to fish as the default shell, it's all set per user. Even so, they can just turn it on once they log on.
• bm1362 9y ago
  That was just a hyperbolic example, but I can think of a few superficial reasons: 1. Because you end up with a more complex Dockerfile. I've seen curls, clones etc during build - having a remote call for random tools in our build _feels_ like a bad practice. 2. There is also the issue that a fleet of application servers will have different tooling available, which can be frustrating in a pinch. I've done some gnarly things across many hosts, expecting a common set of tools. At AWS, we were responsible for non-nuclear team's services during oncall and would ssh to their boxes. Logging into a box with a different shell would be annoying. [2] > for i in `cat hosts.txt`; do ssh $i '...'; done
  • Tyr42 9y ago
    I mean you wouldn't need to set fish as the default shell. But even if it was, you could `do ssh $i "bash -c '...'";`
• HankB99 9y ago
  'fish' I take it is a shell (of which I remain ignorant.) I suppose that at the very least, it increases the attack surface on an installation and either makes security harder or the system less secure.