3 ms·
I see it also supports fish. That's been my shell for many years, it just works really well and, as far as I can tell (couldn't find a demo on their website), i
by Tmpod 1y ago
I see it also supports fish. That's been my shell for many years, it just works really well and, as far as I can tell (couldn't find a demo on their website), it doesn't add much to fish beyond syncing?
Has anyone used fish + autuin? What are your thoughts? I'm curious to know if it is worth the extra tool, maybe I should just try it :)
- aquova 1y agoI've been using fish + atuin for well over a year now. I personally love it. I'm not sure if zsh or bash with atuin offers some additional features that fish doesn't, but the shell syncing and fuzzy search is enough of a value that it made it completely worth setting up for me.
- ellieh 1y agoThe main thing would be opt-in syncing, and I think we might store a little more context than fish does in their SQLite! Otherwise consistency is nice if you use a few setups
- barosl 1y agofish doesn't use SQLite, but its own plaintext format. They've been trying to migrate to other formats.[1] Currently fish stores timestamps and directories in its history. [1] https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/3341 https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/3341
- robertknight 1y agoI use fish + atuin. I leave the "Up" arrow set to use fish's default history search (see https://docs.atuin.sh/faq/#how-do-i-remove-the-default-up-arrow-binding https://docs.atuin.sh/faq/#how-do-i-remove-the-default-up-ar...), which keeps the UI minimal when just going back one or two commands, then use atuin via Ctrl+R when I need to find a command from earlier in my history. At that point Atuin provides a nicer UI for searching the history.