4 ms·
The argument that "fish is not customizable" is not true. Fish is customizable, but at the same time it hides unnecessary complexity from the user. For e.g. You
by siteshwar 13y ago
The argument that "fish is not customizable" is not true. Fish is customizable, but at the same time it hides unnecessary complexity from the user. For e.g. You can customize colors in fish, but you can't customize size of the history file (How many people do it ?). fish comes with sane defaults and most of the times you won't need to change any configurations unless you have very specific requirements.
- djur 13y agoBeing able to set a very high limit for my history file and to share history between instances is a major usability feature in zsh for me. Not being able to do that is honestly reason enough to rule out an alternative shell.
- berdario 13y ago250k items is not enough for your history file? Also, fish shares the history between the shells out of the box, unlike zsh... but it chose to do it in a different way (that is, commands are available even if one of the shells hasn't been closed, unlike bash... but they aren't available right away after entering a single new command, like most zsh configurations that I've seen)