5 ms·

Since OSX was forcing it down my throat, I switched to zsh. I suffered for a couple of months and am now happily back to bash. I’m sure all these behaviors coul

by rixrax 6y ago

Since OSX was forcing it down my throat, I switched to zsh. I suffered for a couple of months and am now happily back to bash. I’m sure all these behaviors could have been changed in zsh but I’m believer in defaults, so the different tab completion behavior and handling of asterisk drove me absolutely bananas.

coldtea 6y ago
>Since OSX was forcing it down my throat, I switched to zsh. Forced it? I've used a custom bash (v. 4) on OS X and not Apple's older bash for a decade or so, and I'm using fish since the last 2 years, not the OS X zsh. It's trivial to change shell (basically, chsh, as in any Unix).
- dehrmann 6y ago
  I'd also put more of the blame on GNU than Apple. Apple probably would have continued to ship bash if it hadn't switched to the GPL3 license.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    The only reason Bash exists at all is because of the very same reason Bash switched to GPLv3. There could be no theoretical world where Bash exists but stays with GPLv2.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      That's a cryptic response. Can you elaborate?
      - coldtea 6y ago
        It's not right either. Bash was made-to-order by the FSF to get a shell free of the old BSD etc code. But there's nothing extremely important about it being GPL3 and not GPL2 (except that it should follow the FSF dictums to the maximum).
    - sigzero 6y ago
      There is NO reason BASH "needed" to go GPLv3.
      - mattl 6y ago
        It wouldn't be a good look for a very popular GNU package to not adopt the hot new license they'd been working on for years.
        dehrmann 6y ago
        I guess Linux isn't technically a GNU package, but it's GPLv2.
        mattl 6y ago
        I’m sure GNU would love Linux. I’m also sure Linux would be GPLv3 if it was a GNU package for the last 20 or so years. But now people who wrote Linux are dead and they can’t relicense easily.
- sbmassey 6y ago
  They are a believer in defaults
opk 6y ago
Not quite sure what you mean by being a "believer in defaults"? Bash an zsh both copied sh and ksh (88) fairly faithfully on old features. Where they diverged on newer things, bash nearly always acquired the feature later than zsh and only very rarely implemented things in a compatible way. Especially for interactive features, I don't think they've seen any need to be compatible. Zsh made more effort on easing things for old tcsh users. It is only on Linux where bash came to be a "default" – if you want pure defaults, see how you enjoy either early sh or a pure POSIX variant as an interactive shell. Where differences drive you bananas, a little effort to find the right knob to tweak and to stick with it would be rewarded in the long run as you explore the nicer features at your leisure. I'm guessing the asterisks is `setopt NOMATCH` to tweak or, otherwise to understand the benefits of the zsh default.

by rixrax 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>Since OSX was forcing it down my throat, I switched to zsh. Forced it? I've used a custom bash (v. 4) on OS X and not Apple's older bash for a decade or so, and I'm using fish since the last 2 years, not the OS X zsh. It's trivial to change shell (basically, chsh, as in any Unix).

dehrmann 6y ago
I'd also put more of the blame on GNU than Apple. Apple probably would have continued to ship bash if it hadn't switched to the GPL3 license.
- teddyh 6y ago
  The only reason Bash exists at all is because of the very same reason Bash switched to GPLv3. There could be no theoretical world where Bash exists but stays with GPLv2.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    That's a cryptic response. Can you elaborate?
    - coldtea 6y ago
      It's not right either. Bash was made-to-order by the FSF to get a shell free of the old BSD etc code. But there's nothing extremely important about it being GPL3 and not GPL2 (except that it should follow the FSF dictums to the maximum).
  - sigzero 6y ago
    There is NO reason BASH "needed" to go GPLv3.
    - mattl 6y ago
      It wouldn't be a good look for a very popular GNU package to not adopt the hot new license they'd been working on for years.
      - dehrmann 6y ago
        I guess Linux isn't technically a GNU package, but it's GPLv2.
        mattl 6y ago
        I’m sure GNU would love Linux. I’m also sure Linux would be GPLv3 if it was a GNU package for the last 20 or so years. But now people who wrote Linux are dead and they can’t relicense easily.
sbmassey 6y ago
They are a believer in defaults

opk 6y ago

Not quite sure what you mean by being a "believer in defaults"? Bash an zsh both copied sh and ksh (88) fairly faithfully on old features. Where they diverged on newer things, bash nearly always acquired the feature later than zsh and only very rarely implemented things in a compatible way. Especially for interactive features, I don't think they've seen any need to be compatible. Zsh made more effort on easing things for old tcsh users. It is only on Linux where bash came to be a "default" – if you want pure defaults, see how you enjoy either early sh or a pure POSIX variant as an interactive shell. Where differences drive you bananas, a little effort to find the right knob to tweak and to stick with it would be rewarded in the long run as you explore the nicer features at your leisure. I'm guessing the asterisks is `setopt NOMATCH` to tweak or, otherwise to understand the benefits of the zsh default.