4 ms·
Disagree. In my experience it’s way easier to use something like fish out of the box rather than spending hours configuring bash to your liking assuming you don
by plandis 4y ago
Disagree. In my experience it’s way easier to use something like fish out of the box rather than spending hours configuring bash to your liking assuming you don’t have your dot files made to your liking yet. If someone is just starting out I’d absolutely recommend something like fish or zsh over bash or csh.
- aulin 4y agoIt's almost twenty years that I use Linux daily and the only thing I ever changed in .bashrc is the history size. What kind of customizations are we talking about? maybe I'm missing out using stock bash configuration and I should start customizing it to my liking it (serious, no sarcasm)
- barefeg 4y agoAutocomplete from history is something I really enjoy from my config. I can live without the nice colors and data. Though having the execution time of the previous command has been very handy a few times
- fragmede 4y agofzf for command history searching custom PATH for your own programs options to programs like LESS
- p5a0u9l 4y agoHistory-based auto completion is a productivity game changer. But, You can get fish-like niceties with trivial effort in zsh. The deal breaker for be with fish is abandoning decades of bash syntax. With zsh, I can have my fancy, productive prompt and still write bash-compatible sheets scripts.