Which shell do you use? - Page 3

darkshadow · #51 June 14th, 2010, 17:43

I love zsh , and it is great take a look http://zsh.sourceforge.net/Doc/Relea...roduction.html

nekoexmachina · #52 June 14th, 2010, 17:54

i use zsh too, but may be i'll switch to csh for interactive shell if i'll find time to configure it as my zsh.

fronclynne · #53 June 14th, 2010, 18:56

tcsh because I'm lazy. I don't use very many features but I'm used to the completion paradigm of tcsh on freebsd, and I have no good reason to change, since it's in /bin.

I usually install zsh and pdksh (& sometimes mksh) and every once in a great while I'll change my ol' user account over to one, but I go back to tcsh after a couple of days.

ah7013 · #54 June 14th, 2010, 22:08

bash for me because I come from a Linux background and all the Linux distros I have tried used bash so i'm just used to it.

ckester · #55 June 14th, 2010, 22:57

I've been using mksh since seeing killasmurf recommend it in another thread.

Reasons: size, speed, absence of GNUish cruft. Ability to redirect stderr. Enhanced pattern matching in variable substitutions. Reasonable license!

hedwards · #56 June 15th, 2010, 00:38

For my main user account, I've switched from tcsh to bash on account of all the scary things I was reading about the c shells. The main one being that other shells have the ability to evaluate what a command is going to expand to without actually executing it.

But, as for root, I'll leave it as is forever. If, however, one is going to change it then for God's sake keep it as one of the ones which is shipped as a part of the base system. Having had the experience earlier today where I couldn't log in as myself because I hadn't finished the dependencies for bash I'd highly recommend against using ports for root's shell.

I do however dislike the way that bash handles the history. It's always irritated me that you can't type in a few characters of the command and skip to just the commands you've entered that start with those characters.

**DutchDaemon** · #57 June 15th, 2010, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckester

I've been using mksh since seeing killasmurf recommend it in another thread.

Reasons: size, speed, absence of GNUish cruft. Ability to redirect stderr. Enhanced pattern matching in variable substitutions. Reasonable license!

I've switched to mksh from bash as well. Less clutter, better speed, and with the included mkshrc sample it can be made to look like bash with minor tweaks. And NO dependencies whatsoever!

ckester · #58 June 15th, 2010, 15:56

I didn't know about that mkshrc sample, Dutch. Thanks for pointing it out. Something to play with today!

The .profile I'd been using with bash seems to be working just as well with mksh, without needing any edits. What I liked in bash is apparently just the stuff they borrowed from Korn shell, and not any of their own "innovations".

olav · #59 June 15th, 2010, 16:40

Im using bash mostly, but after reading this thread I have to check out mksh

graudeejs · #60 June 15th, 2010, 17:30

sh vs bash vs mksh

hedwards · #61 June 16th, 2010, 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by killasmurf86

sh vs bash vs mksh

Those results aren't terribly surprising. The clone of the Bourne Shell FreeBSD uses ought to be quite a bit quicker as it doesn't incorporate as much cruft as bash does.

carlton_draught · #62 June 16th, 2010, 03:35

I used sh for root, and bash for users. In root, I always switch straight to bash for interactive use. Scripts are done in sh when I have a choice. However, I will have a look at some of the more popular options after reviewing this thread.

graudeejs · #63 June 16th, 2010, 05:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by hedwards

Those results aren't terribly surprising. The clone of the Bourne Shell FreeBSD uses ought to be quite a bit quicker as it doesn't incorporate as much cruft as bash does.

So what cool stuff do you do with bash, that other shells can't do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...omputer_shells

**lme@** · #64 June 17th, 2010, 06:45

Now that our beloved Bourne Shell got support for filename completion, we can all switch to it!

See http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?v...evision=209221

BrainDamage · #65 June 17th, 2010, 12:16

zsh for interactive use
csh as default for root account, but normally I switch over and use the zsh

mirabilos · #66 June 17th, 2010, 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by lme@

Now that our beloved Bourne Shell got support for filename completion, we can all switch to it!

It’s actually an almost-POSIX shell, not(!) a Bourne shell,
with broken behaviour for "sh -c 'somescript' -- foo bar baz"
which mksh can emulate when compiled with a specific option,
-DMKSH_MIDNIGHTBSD01ASH_COMPAT, and then when either called
with “-o sh” or as sh when compiled with -DMKSH_BINSHREDUCED.

I’d say ditch it. MidnightBSD is doing so, and they like mksh.

fairy · #67 June 18th, 2010, 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by killasmurf86

sh vs bash vs mksh

You could have included zsh. It's usually faster than bash and has better sh emulation.
Anyway, shell scripts are easy to rewrite for bash/zsh/whatever so that they're faster than on /bin/sh. You'll see real performance when you reduce external commands to minimum.

loop · #68 June 18th, 2010, 02:26

csh for root, zsh for user.

I've been using zsh for years ... mostly for it's completion abilities (I'm a lazy typist

. Started using it well before any of the other shells featured built-in completion, and haven't bothered to change

ckester · #69 June 18th, 2010, 03:38

It looks like those of us who are looking for something other than bash are about evenly divided between mksh and zsh. Perhaps we need to do a head-to-head comparison between these two. What benchmarks do you suggest?

sk8harddiefast · #70 June 18th, 2010, 08:46

Hi. I use bash but i want to use mksh but i didn't find none .mkshrc sample googling. Even on mirbsd site.
Is anyone how can post one or give me a url with a sample?

**DutchDaemon** · #71 June 18th, 2010, 14:45

Ports install examples under /usr/local/share/examples/.

sk8harddiefast · #72 June 18th, 2010, 15:02

This was the path i was searching for. I found it and i copy it on my home directory.
I set alias ls='ls -G' and i have colorised terminal

But how can i colorise my hostname too?
I don't understand nothing on this file

graudeejs · #73 June 18th, 2010, 16:24

I've read man mksh.
As I understand, you can't colorize it (without some trick, which have side effects)

At least I can post small replies

**DutchDaemon** · #74 June 18th, 2010, 17:05

The default (included) .mkshrc colorizes with ls -G
No additional settings have been made.

Just tried without any .mkshrc .. still colorizes.

sk8harddiefast · #75 June 19th, 2010, 00:10

Quote:

Just tried without any .mkshrc .. still colorizes.

On me default is not ls -G. Is ls -F.
No. Without any .mkshrc on my home directory all colours are white

Also without any .mkshrc is not giving me hostname before $
I open mksh from bash. This is possible to make the difference?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Support Adobe Flash (shell script)	soko1	Howtos & FAQs (Moderated)	9	September 11th, 2012 15:50

The Following User Says Thank You to graudeejs For This Useful Post:
mirabilos (June 17th, 2010)