3 ms·

I wonder what the author thinks of zsh. Unlike bash, zsh completion just works. It's context-aware, properly completes subcommands and options, and doesn't suff

I wonder what the author thinks of zsh. Unlike bash, zsh completion just works. It's context-aware, properly completes subcommands and options, and doesn't suffer from the problem explained in the article. It even shows descriptions for each of the completion candidates. In contrast, bash almost always falls back to filename completion for the most common commands even when third party frameworks like bash-completion are installed. It's frustrating when I have to deal with interactive bash sessions because, sigh, Docker.

siproprio 3y ago
yeah, zsh is just superior. it can even emulate bash!
throwiforgtnlzy 3y ago
Yes. 15+ year zsh user here. When dealing with bash, try to sneak in PackageKit-command-not-found and bash-completion. And when running a shell, do it like this: docker run user/image:tag -it --rm bash -li Also, zshdb, bashdb, and shellcheck are good stuff™ too. My mantra is all programs and widely-used company tools should have current man pages and shell completions. The whole "Go look at a web page" for "help" is slow, distracting, and lazy.
- amluto 3y ago
  > PackageKit-command-not-found This one is so pathetically slow on Fedora that I find it counterproductive. Also, at least as of a year or two ago (I haven’t checked since then), PackageKit maintained its own, large, cache, thus wasting a surprising amount of space in /var.
  - throwiforgtnlzy 3y ago
    It depends. It's better than nothing that can be ^C'ed. Here's a naive, partial implementation that runs in <500 ms so long as there's an existing dnf cache: command_not_found_handle() { local pkgs readarray pkgs < <(dnf rq --whatprovides "$1" -C --qf '%{name}\n' 2>/dev/null | sed '/^$/d' | sort -uVr) if (( ! "${#pkgs[@]}" )); then echo >&2 'Command not found and no package provides it according to the dnf cache' return fi echo >&2 'Command not found, but offered via the following command(s):' pkgs=("${pkgs[@]/#/ dnf install }") echo >&2 " ${pkgs[@]}" }

siproprio 3y ago

yeah, zsh is just superior. it can even emulate bash!

throwiforgtnlzy 3y ago

Yes. 15+ year zsh user here. When dealing with bash, try to sneak in PackageKit-command-not-found and bash-completion. And when running a shell, do it like this: docker run user/image:tag -it --rm bash -li Also, zshdb, bashdb, and shellcheck are good stuff™ too. My mantra is all programs and widely-used company tools should have current man pages and shell completions. The whole "Go look at a web page" for "help" is slow, distracting, and lazy.

amluto 3y ago
> PackageKit-command-not-found This one is so pathetically slow on Fedora that I find it counterproductive. Also, at least as of a year or two ago (I haven’t checked since then), PackageKit maintained its own, large, cache, thus wasting a surprising amount of space in /var.
- throwiforgtnlzy 3y ago
  It depends. It's better than nothing that can be ^C'ed. Here's a naive, partial implementation that runs in <500 ms so long as there's an existing dnf cache: command_not_found_handle() { local pkgs readarray pkgs < <(dnf rq --whatprovides "$1" -C --qf '%{name}\n' 2>/dev/null | sed '/^$/d' | sort -uVr) if (( ! "${#pkgs[@]}" )); then echo >&2 'Command not found and no package provides it according to the dnf cache' return fi echo >&2 'Command not found, but offered via the following command(s):' pkgs=("${pkgs[@]/#/ dnf install }") echo >&2 " ${pkgs[@]}" }