4 ms·

Try fish shell. It has auto completion by default and is easy to configure with web interface "fish_config", no need to rely on some community repo like oh-my-z

Try fish shell. It has auto completion by default and is easy to configure with web interface "fish_config", no need to rely on some community repo like oh-my-zsh. There can be bugs if you set it as default shell but i just append "fish" at the end of my .bashrc :)

ar_lan 5y ago
It's so interesting - it seems that fish is getting more and more popular lately. I tried it ~7 years ago and thought it was severely lacking, so I just stuck with zsh and have never really had a reason to look back. Maybe I'll check out fish again at some point - what features does it have that drew you to it?
- drcongo 5y ago
  Almost everything that you might get from oh-my-zsh is built in and it's _much_ faster. I've been using Fish for a few years now and I love it.
  - ar_lan 5y ago
    I don't really use `oh-my-zsh`, I just built my own prompt. It's pretty snappy, so I don't feel a huge need to switch, but maybe on a slow day I'll install fish to give it a whirl.
- clashmeifyoucan 5y ago
  not OP but the two features of fish that stood out for me so much that I make it my default shell on remote servers are 1) the autocomplete suggestion as you type a command [1] 2) scrolling thru commands after partially writing one only shows entries that match the written text 3) knowing if a command will work before pressing enter -- saves from a lot of gotchas. all of these read like features nice to have but not essential, but when you're using something every day, it's worth it :) [1]: https://fishshell.com/docs/current/tutorial.html#autosuggestions https://fishshell.com/docs/current/tutorial.html#autosuggest...
- Macha 5y ago
  I moved from zsh + oh-my-zsh to fish a couple of years ago. The main reasons were: 1. It had a lot of qol features I liked from zsh _by default_ without requiring a significant config 2. Prebuilt zsh configs like oh-my-zsh have been pretty commonly quite slow in my experience, which fish fixes.

ar_lan 5y ago

It's so interesting - it seems that fish is getting more and more popular lately. I tried it ~7 years ago and thought it was severely lacking, so I just stuck with zsh and have never really had a reason to look back. Maybe I'll check out fish again at some point - what features does it have that drew you to it?

drcongo 5y ago
Almost everything that you might get from oh-my-zsh is built in and it's _much_ faster. I've been using Fish for a few years now and I love it.
- ar_lan 5y ago
  I don't really use `oh-my-zsh`, I just built my own prompt. It's pretty snappy, so I don't feel a huge need to switch, but maybe on a slow day I'll install fish to give it a whirl.
clashmeifyoucan 5y ago
not OP but the two features of fish that stood out for me so much that I make it my default shell on remote servers are 1) the autocomplete suggestion as you type a command [1] 2) scrolling thru commands after partially writing one only shows entries that match the written text 3) knowing if a command will work before pressing enter -- saves from a lot of gotchas. all of these read like features nice to have but not essential, but when you're using something every day, it's worth it :) [1]: https://fishshell.com/docs/current/tutorial.html#autosuggestions https://fishshell.com/docs/current/tutorial.html#autosuggest...
Macha 5y ago
I moved from zsh + oh-my-zsh to fish a couple of years ago. The main reasons were: 1. It had a lot of qol features I liked from zsh _by default_ without requiring a significant config 2. Prebuilt zsh configs like oh-my-zsh have been pretty commonly quite slow in my experience, which fish fixes.