43
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lemmyman210@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 days ago
[-] ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

That's what I currently use but I've tested fsh a little and was potentially looking to move. I just have to pull the trigger and see if I regret it or not.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

I went from bash to zsh to fish.

  1. I understood bash. Manual is good, searchable, understandable.
  2. I never understood zsh. Manual is split up in several different man pages, very annoying to find what you're looking for. I never ever understood what I was doing, config wise. Just blindly following convoluted how-to's.
  3. With fish, I finally understand every aspect of my shell again, and it's like 10x simpler than bash. Can be learned completely within 30 minutes or so.

Highly recommend the switch.

[-] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Love me some Fish 😊

[-] chrash0@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

reject POSIX, embrace nushell

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Fish isn't POSIX...

That said, I tried nushell a couple times and it's pretty cool. Just a big hurdle for right now.

[-] chrash0@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

yeah, but they did reverse course on ; and vs && to be more POSIX compatible, which is a decision i understand but don’t agree with

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Hmm, where did you hear that? I'm reading the manual through relevant parts but I can't find anything regarding those combiners and POSIX compliancy.

Do you have a link perhaps?

[-] chrash0@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

it was years ago. they used to not support &&, but they added it so people could paste commands into the terminal

i think this is the PR from 8 years ago 👴: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/4620

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Love the pragmatic discourse in that issue. The suggestion is also really well formulated. Bravo to everyone involved.

[-] LPThinker@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Hell yeah nushell! Truly a life-changing upgrade.

[-] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

Porque no los dos?

[-] hisao@ani.social 4 points 3 days ago

Fish looks cool, but I decided to settle on ble.sh for compatibility reasons. This one deserves some attention too. For me the main motivation was history-based autocomplete.

[-] artiman@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago

that's a command line editor tho fish is a shell?

[-] dgdft@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Blesh adds a lot of functionality that makes bash feel + act like a fancier neoshell, while keeping the same syntax. Also includes a pre-exec hook, which vanilla bash notably lacks.

Highly recommend.

[-] hisao@ani.social 1 points 3 days ago

Yes, but "command line editor" is a confusing term. For me it's "get features of a fancy shell in pure bash".

[-] Olap@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Oh-my-bash. All of the upsides. None of the down

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Fish, so much simplicity you can keep the entire language in your head while scripting.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
43 points (86.4% liked)

Linux

8763 readers
288 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