What shell do you use daily?

ruby R53 said:
yeah that one has to have the most HIDEOUS syntax of them all, i dunno what microsoft thought that making commands huge as fuck would be any good
Click to expand...
It has tab completion but it just goes through the current directory listing. It obviously wasn't meant as common environment where you can do anything like a UNIX shell.
They were already limiting consumer computers to create a softeware-world that pretends to be physical and required. But it wasn't even that bad. Looking at phones bound to a prescribed kernel and no root credentials or multitasking. It doesn't even run real executables and everything is infested with advertisements...
 
MG said:
It has tab completion but it just goes through the current directory listing. It obviously wasn't meant as common environment where you can do anything like a UNIX shell.
Click to expand...
pretty bad decision, really··· there are stuff that's much faster to do in the terminal, especially in an OS as cluttered as Windows

MG said:
They were already limiting consumer computers to create a softeware-world that pretends to be physical and required. But it wasn't even that bad. Looking at phones bound to a prescribed kernel and no root credentials or multitasking. It doesn't even run real executables and everything is infested with advertisements...
Click to expand...
well i'd imagine Microsoft would wanna head towards that very direction as well···
 
Al Seitsinger said:
I wrote a library that lets me use Thomson's shell for as much as I need. Too much software stinks.
Click to expand...
good stuff, that's pretty much what i wanted to accomplish with using bash 'cos i had my "minimalistic" phase where i'd try to make my own tools instead of using existing ones

also why is your profile picture you imitating a soyjak
 
ruby R53 said:
good stuff, that's pretty much what i wanted to accomplish with using bash 'cos i had my "minimalistic" phase where i'd try to make my own tools instead of using existing ones

also why is your profile picture you imitating a soyjak
Click to expand...
I promise if you do this, and find a degree you won't be disappointed with your life. I did the same thing for ten years. I just embarassed a whole collective of Anonymous and will finish a PhD within the next six years (Cybersecurity).

ruby R53 said:
good stuff, that's pretty much what i wanted to accomplish with using bash 'cos i had my "minimalistic" phase where i'd try to make my own tools instead of using existing ones

also why is your profile picture you imitating a soyjak
Click to expand...
You're what's called talented.
 
Al Seitsinger said:
I promise if you do this, and find a degree you won't be disappointed with your life. I did the same thing for ten years. I just embarassed a whole collective of Anonymous and will finish a PhD within the next six years (Cybersecurity).
Click to expand...
heh i wish, sadly i'm too lazy and unmotivated to study anything and get tired really easily

Al Seitsinger said:
You're what's called talented.
Click to expand...
hope
 
scottro said:
Unlike most people on this thread, my scripts are probably horribly primitive, many working in sh as well. But blackbird9, I thought I'd heard that zsh is compatible with bash, that is it will work with most bash scripts. I thought that was part of its attraction, that it works with both bash-isms, and csh-isms. Of course, don't remember where I'd read this. But for what it's worth, testing with zsh at one point, when I was just trying it, did work with some basic sh and csh stuff. This was longgg ago, though might have changed for all I know.

I think some, perhaps a few, Linux distributions I played with also had fish, which I found rather annoying, predicting what I was going to type (often the wrong thing if I typoed) and, if I'm remembering right, colored text.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I remember reading that, I don't know to be honest. It's safer just to use bash and not risk getting some kind of subtle bugs.
 
Bash because it lets me do stuff like `cp /etc/passwd{,.bak}`, ranges like {1..3}, lists and associative arrays.

Only for root I leave the default Korn shell, C shell, etc. because it's tied to base.
 
bash

Would love to have zsh's interactive features, but zsh is not quite compatible with POSIX sh and I have libraries of functions I use both in scripts and interactively.
 
cracauer@ said:
Would love to have zsh's interactive features, but zsh is not quite compatible with POSIX sh and I have libraries of functions I use both in scripts and interactively.
Click to expand...
there are options for making it more POSIX-compatible, i won't remember them in details off the top of my head but i'm pretty sure they are there
 
Most of my FreeBSD boxes are like this:
root => sh
toor => zsh
user => sh
I am mostly logged as toor .
90% of my scripts are written in sh, I don't script in zsh (I don't need it).
zsh is for its interactivity (a lot of good stuff even if I keep things minimal), I like having everything defined in its own configuration file, bash needs a inputrc file, not a big deal sure but I prefer the zsh way.
 
I use bash on all machines. Scripts are written in a much simplified style, on FreeBSD using /bin/sh instead of bash. I have been known to occasionally check that my shell scripts only use Posix features superficially (by using bash in Posix mode), but I'm not religious about that.
 
meanwhile i always start my scripts with #!/bin/bash just to make sure i don't accidentally write a bashism that will make it unrunnable in other shells xd
 
For me it's a mixture... My personal favorite for my own account(s) is the Korn shell (shells/pdksh). The reasoning is simple: I'm a former Solaris admin and yah, got used to it. I especially appreciate it's vi modus.

Well, it was FreeBSD itself which introduced me to the C Shell (which used to be the default for the root user), and over time I actually grew to like it. Especially because it forces you to think... when I try to "mindlessly" use # for a in `ls *txt`; do ... then I'm quickly reminded not to be so hasty because... "that no workie" within the C Shell. Right now I'm still relying on the one provided by the base system, but I am preparing to eventually make the switch to shells/44bsd-csh.

And finally... also important: the Bourne shell (/bin/sh). I don't use this interactively, but all my shell scripts rely on it.
 
freezr said:
I found an hint that allows you to run fish from within sh on Root, this spared me a lot of headache...
Last comment here: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/4573
Click to expand...
What happens if things go south and you have to boot in "single user mode"? Will fish be able to handle it properly?
Personally I prefer to let my root account alone, instead switch to toor account which can use a different shell without damaging the root account ;)

For those who do not know what toor account is:

toor (Unix) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
N

Solved Thread '[Solved] "toor" account'

I notice the "toor" account uses the same configuration files (ex: .cshrc, .profile, etc.) as the "root" account. I left the "root" account untouched. It uses csh. I changed the shell on the "toor" account from sh to bash. I noticed when I login as "toor" and I type whoami, it tells me I am "root", instead of "toor". What's the deal with this "toor" account? Why doesn't it use its own configuration files (ex: .cshrc, .profile, etc.)? Why does it seem like it's aliased to the "root" account? Aliased is the wrong word to use, but that's...
  • Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top