102
chsh is pretty straightforward. Never caused me an issue. Been using zsh for damn near two decades.
Does CachyOS use real Arch repos or is it like Manjaro which holds packages for "testing"?
They use their own repos, but they don't hold back the packages. The reason for having separate repos is recompiling packages for newer architectures. It gives a little performance boost for most of them. AUR works totally fine.
OK, thank you, this pretty much explains everything.
no. it is akin to Manjaro in that it is based on Arch repos, but is opinionated. they have their own kernel, wine, proton, with their patches.
I'm asking whether it's more like "arch with some custom spice" or rather something vaguely similar to arch like "ubuntu is like debian". I tried manjaro long, long time ago and can't remember much more than using AUR being mess due to not really being arch...
It's not really arch. It's more like Ubuntu is to Debian.
EndeavourOS is straight arch repos, with one additional optional repo of their own with a few of their tools, branding, etc.
Cachy is opinionated about the OS.
EndeavourOS is only opinionated about the install setup. Arch with sane defaults.
While I see the analogy, saying "CachyOS to Arch is like Ubuntu to Debian" with a straight face is not something I can do. If you try to interact with an Ubuntu install like it's Debian, you'll get very frustrated very quickly. If you try to interact with a CachyOS install like it's Arch, you probably won't even notice you are not on Arch, besides a couple of different package names.
i suppose, it's a loose analogy he brought up, so i was just trying to speak his language.
the point is, the packages are different, particularly core ones. so it is not straight Arch.
I know it's not a perfect analogy. It was just a first thing that crossed my mind...
doesn't bother me, i get what you're saying.
I always figured anyone wanting a different shell is probably heavily into Linux to the point that switching it themselves would be fairly trivial.
Is CachyOS a more CLI focused desktop linux? I'm not very familiar with it. Normally on a desktop I avoid the CLI, because the GUI is just easier and faster to use.
GUI is often faster to learn, but CLI is almost always faster to use. It's the argument people use for why they choose it. You don't have to move your mouse to click on buttons that can be anywhere. You just type. With tab completion, it's significantly faster.
(There is a secondary argument for CLI for tutorials, in that it's going to be the same or similar for everyone.)
I agree CLI is faster for tasks I do often, but for one-off stuff or rare tasks where I will forget the CLI args, it's significantly slower having to look up the right commands each time.
Again, GUI is faster to learn, CLI is faster to use.
TLDR really helps though, rather than man pages.
If you don’t count looking up parameters in man pages. GUIs are great because you don’t need to remember or look up commands and parameters. GUIs have keyboard shortcuts as well.
CLI is great when doing the same complex operation more than once, chaining program output, and such.
Yeah, easier to learn, slower to use.
Sort of, its Arch so all of the fun stuff that goes with that but they also have a package repo application that let's you use a GUI instead. I find the CLI faster but the GUI will guide you to the correct packages a bit better than searching freehand on a browser.
I would imagine that if you know enough to legitimately have a favorite shell, you don't really have an issue running chsh
I don't get it.
As such, users now have the option to choose between cachyos-fish-config and cachyos-zsh-config. "If neither is selected, the system will default to Bash. The default configuration will still be Fish ...
You can choose between fish and zsh and if you don't select anything it selects bash but fish is default? Huh?
Meaning, fish is preselected and you have to unselect fish in order to get bash?
Like:
Which shell do you want (deselect for bash)? [x] fish [ ] zsh
From my understanding, if you choose one, you'll get that shell + the styling/prompt, however if you choose neither, you'll just get stock bash with nothing extra applied. I've taken a quick skim through their pkgbuilds, and they don't seem to have a bash equivalent for these configs
Alright nerds, what’s your favorite shell and why do you think it was omitted?
My favourite is fish because I tried it once and I really like its autocomplete. I usually do simple stuff so I stick to it.
Really saves a bunch of time. It seems to auto complete based on what directory you are in too which is really useful for some of the stuff I do.
It would be cool if it was built into the terminal itself, where you'd just select it and it would auto-download and install.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
102 points (98.1% liked)
Linux
8428 readers
447 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS