I usually end up using bash. Is there and good reason I shouldn't?

I personally use zsh, loving some nice features that this shell offers (good auto-completion with tabbing), oh-my-zsh or better grml config.

zsh with oh-my-zsh.

Bash here, never seen the need for anything else. I must admit that the fish shell looks cool though.

I used bash forever and decided to use zsh with oh-my-zsh the other day. It's pretty much the same for me, I can't say it's really any faster. The colors for oh-my-zsh don't suit my white terminal tho

zsh for the completion, bash or scripting

Client-shell-of-choice still is bash. On servers: A wide variety, except zsh.

k

(30-07-2014, 07:22 PM)kirby Wrote: Bash here, never seen the need for anything else. I must admit that the fish shell looks cool though.

That shell looks neat! I want to try other ones, so that'll be on the list.
I've also heard good things about mksh, does anyone use that here?

You should ask ypnose for that. Check out his blog also, its quitte Nice : http://blog.ypnose.org

bash had that bug tho. I use hush its very lightweight.

i use zsh. it seems like there's a completion system for everything. i also like the simple setup for thinks like keybindings, prompts, path expansions, extended glob searches, and it's own internal function system for thinks like git.

Fish (http://fishshell.com/)!

It's really cool. Offers a lot of improvements over bash like zsh but without the hours spent configuring it.

i use zsh and bash for scripting on linux, bsd and osx

(30-07-2014, 10:06 AM)JerrySpringerIsMyDad Wrote: I usually end up using bash. Is there and good reason I shouldn't?

there isn't by any means anything wrong with bash. buuuut, zsh is a bit more flexible, is entirely compatable with bash, and weighs less.

zsh for looking pretty, mksh for everything else.

zsh on my personal machines, bash on servers or anything that comes by default on the OS.

Mostly bash for interactive use, but I (try) to write POSIX shell scripts (/bin/sh on my server is aliased to /bin/busybox, so ash by default)

I like to give users zsh for interactive stuff, for root-affairs always mksh.
With scripts it depends on the needs. Should it be portable -> /bin/sh. Should it be fancy -> zsh. In any other case I use bash for scripting, because it's easy to handle.

I use zsh with zsh-syntax-highlighting when I want to look good. oh-my-zsh is too heavy for me.

`which sh`
/bin/bash

fuckyeah.jpg

I personally use zsh, but came across someone using fish on http://usesthis.com and I looked it up. It looks good, how are you liking it?

Fish's design philosophy is absolutely horrendous.

zsh everywhere.

normal user: zsh / root: tcsh

ksh, because openbsd.

bash(1) because I'm to lazy to chsh(1) to anything else.

zsh(1) because of zim.

ksh93 everywhere because of POSIX.

rc, i love its syntax and it is my initials

i'm using bash. previously i used zsh with zim, which was handy, but for my needs, to much.