What shell do you think that is the best or what shell do you use?

Just my opinion but using ksh as the baseline shell for an operating system violates the "keep it simple, stupid" principle. Scripts that make use of the more advanced features of the ksh shell are essentially non-reusable in another context where the baseline is the basic sh(1). I guess OpenBSD can do that because they have such a tight leash on what goes into the OS and what doesn't.
 
When it comes to login shells one feature outstands in bash (so I think): command completion. The basic one is good enough. It's very comfortable, especially on a system you are not familiar with. You know command begins with "s", you hit the completion escape sequence and you see the list of all s* commands. This is priceless - absolutely perfect.
To be fair, I've seen completion on other shells too. But the "bash way" suits me the best.

On FreeBSD I have bash even as root (yes, you can compile it so you don't bury yourself during crash, etc.). As I use HPUX a lot, I came to benefit from ksh features too. I like vi behavior.

When scripting posix sh is more than enough. At least in most cases.
 
matoatlantis said:
When it comes to login shells one feature outstands in bash (so I think): command completion. The basic one is good enough. It's very comfortable, especially on a system you are not familiar with. You know command begins with "s", you hit the completion escape sequence and you see the list of all s* commands. This is priceless - absolutely perfect.
To be fair, I've seen completion on other shells too. But the "bash way" suits me the best.
Click to expand...

How is that different from csh/tcsh?
 
wblock@ said:
How is that different from csh/tcsh?
Click to expand...

It's been some time I've used csh, but I think it doesn't show all possible commands (in PATH) when nothing is written in command line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top