3 ms·

I'm wondering about the answer to #1 as well. After trying this out for a bit there's nothing obvious and there are definitely things I miss.

• ash 14y ago
  1. No need to mess with configs. Works out of the box. 2. Breaking Bourne Shell compatibility. Personally I find Bourne syntax hard to learn and hard to read. Fish syntax is much better. [1, 2] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell [2]: http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/index.html http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/index.html
  • bstpierre 14y ago
    Sounds like there's no reason for me to switch. I've already messed with configs and everything is stable now, so that's a sunk cost. I already know bourne-style syntax, so learning fish (even if it's easier) is an added cost, not to mention the fact that I have to work on various boxes that I can't install fish on so it's easier to have my fingers know how to operate a single shell (zsh) that's generally backwards-compatible with bash (which is ubiquitous).
    • kator 14y ago
      Funny I was about to say the same thing about installing on systems. When you're a systems person or work with many different customers you can't ask them to install a custom shell. Try explaining to the CIO at a major bank why all his linux boxes need fish shell installed. So we get stuck back at the minimal set of SH syntax that I learned to master some 25 years ago.