What shell do you use, and why, Jow Forums?

You should use Bash because it is standard and you are not special.

>fish is comfy but breaks scripts
fish being incompatible with bash doesn't mean it breaks scripts. What does that even mean?

bash is so disgusting tho
so are all shells
i love mksh

oh my zsh on msys2 on cmder on windows

bash because it's the de facto standard on linux
meme shells like zsh and fish are pointless ego masturbation

#!/bin/bash

ash

Is it possible/easy to get the same level of completion on bash as with oh my zsh? That's the primary reason why I use zsh over bash.

thinking about making my own shell/terminal
- persistent (session-scoped) output, so it can be further piped without rerunning the command of pre-actively saving it
- more declarative syntax that doesn't have string escaping and expansion hell, file descriptors references as a variable type so the whole pipe doesn't need to be written at once
- separation of unhanded descriptors (usually stderr of individual programs) and monitoring of individual exit codes
will see how it goes

What was that bloated shell made with like javascript or electron or some shit like that?

Fish cause it just fucking works.

bash-it

dash or mksh only options

I've switched to fish pretty recently, it's pretty nice.
>fish is comfy but breaks scripts
I might be wrong but, can't you just point the scripts to sh or bash?

eshell because I'm a sucker for lisp

They should already be pointing to bash
>#!/bin/bash

Bash. I used to use zsh but I ported my configuration over to bash and it works the same, ayy lmao.

Bash because I'm not a nerd faggot

ksh93 because its still standard

I use zsh for the vim mode, the history plugin that allows you to type a word then scroll up to search every time you used it in a command, and the auto complete/auto suggestions plugin. Also don't use oh my zsh, find the plugins you like and install just those ones otherwise it will be slow as fuck.

rc. better speed, better syntax, better complexity, better ideology

bash with some minor tweaks

zsh is only the default on archiso, it also comes with grml configs

I messed up. I meant that it uses a different syntax than what i am used to.

Oh, it's not like it makes working with terminal much more pleasant.

Why would i know? I stopped using bash when i discovered alternarive shells, never looked back again. I do think that is possible, though.

What is so good about mksh? Is it compitable with bash?

Fish with my own oh-my-fish plugin that gives me vim-like registers.

I use zsh only because it's not a GNUtard product.

konsole

Zsh because it's comfy

fish for interactive shells, bash for scripting

Bash because I'm not a retarded ricer. Fuck off back to the arch forums.

xonsh

>fish is comfy but breaks scripts
it doesnt, OS executes whatever is in the script's hashbang

>fish is comfy but breaks scripts
>not using #!shebangs

bash

>muh comfy rice boomer cuck

script in bash/sh, or if you want something different, rc
user facing use elvish, fish, or zsh+oh-my-zsh

Yeah, I've never actually installed Arch Linux. I've just used the live version.

i leld

Attached: j8h6a8zjnglx.jpg (1920x1080, 114K)

mksh is backward compatible with bash to the same extent ksh is (so, a bit).
The most obvious difference to me is the PS1 syntax, pretty finicky.
I'm not sure about scripting though, it's probably just like ksh (that's what it's based on).

I use KSH, you dumb faggot because using anything else is wrong. but the one you should use is called KYS

Attached: 0002.gif (440x440, 2.48M)

This. I use zsh because of the autcompletion too, but otherwise it is inferior to bash. If zsh didn't had this special snowflake syntax, it would be goat.

Nobody scripts in fish. You write your scripts still in sh or bash and just use fish as an interactive shell.

Eshell is comfy

I use bash because I'm not retarded and know how to customise it.

>Oh, it's not like it makes working with terminal much more pleasant.
It doesn't. Bash can be configured to behave just like Zsh in 99% of cases. Except that implies actual competence which dumb ricers lack.

ksh is the python of shells in that you have to ask "which version?"
so which one are you running? pdksh, mksh, or the one true ksh93?

Fish, it's the best and much faster than zsh

> fish is comfy but breaks scripts
What the actual fuck? Do you realize the shell which scripts are ran is defined by the hash bang line?

You don't seem like you understand Unix.

What matters is that zsh us not GPLv3.

>Fish, it's the best and much faster than zsh
I wonder about your test methodology.
In my experience, zsh is pretty fast without shit like Oh My Zsh.
Then again, without Oh My Zsh it's mostly just a hipster version of bash.

And? Different license doesn't mean zsh isn't shit.

Fuck you.

>onions my zsh

pdksh. Its perfect.b

bash because I don't want to rewrite my scripts across every server I ever ssh into, and if you don't use scripts and functions for the majority of your work you're a brainlet

>he calls it hash bang
wow

patricians say "shebang"

Fuck no, they should. They should point to a POSIX shell.

yep, Eshell is amazing.
Too bad that Emacs itself is a one threaded legacy abomination.

Attached: 1508623766789.gif (500x333, 967K)

There was this setup of an user who made bash behave like zsh. Can anybody share?

You are an idiot because bash isn't available on some embedded devices, for instance. Too heavyweight.

You're sure it's not the opposite? IIRC zsh has a mode to behave like bash as much as possible.

But why would you want that?

Attached: 1491924806758.png (900x900, 543K)

I agree. Avoid bash-isms if you want portability. Maybe #!/bin/sh does that better, though I'm not sure that works on *every* UNIX system.

I was just replying.
You would want that because of the bash-isms trend you find in scripts nowadays.

Windows like normal non autistic people

Um... even autistic people know that Windows is not a Shell.

Bash . why do I need anything else

doesn't bash emulate POSIX if it's invoked as sh? a lot of distros probably symlink it

>Bash can be configured to behave just like Zsh in 99% of cases. Except that implies actual competence which dumb ricers lack.
Id like to see an example of that, because the only way to make bash work like zsh is to use awk/sed/grep commands. Why not just use a shell that gives fuzzy search capability out of the box instead of having to learn regexps?

POSIX is only a recommendation, based on ksh. I don't believe it forbids extending the shell.
I haven't noticed differences when bash is invoked with /bin/sh on my system. That said, it's easy to verify: by using bash-isms in a script and invoke it with /bin/sh.