MacOS finally pushed me to zsh. So I went all the way and installed
oh-my-zsh. It makes me feel very dirty, and I have a two-line prompt (!!),
but I can't deny it's convenient.
(and in my terminal, the X glyph next to my git branch showing the status
is dirty is red while the branch name is green)
and if something doesn't exit with rc=0...
zsh: command not found: fart
tickets/DM-32983 ✗127 ⚠️
Then I also get the little warning glyph and the rc of the last command in
But then I'm also now using Fira Code with ligatures in my terminal, so
I've pretty much gone full Red Lightsaber.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 7:41 AM Norman Wilson <norman(a)oclsc.org> wrote:
bash is clearly more advanced. ksh is retro computing.
Shell wars are, in the end, no more interesting than editor wars.
I use bash on Linux systems because it's the least-poorly
supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which bash
is there by default. Ksh isn't.
I use ksh on OpenBSD systems because it's the least-poorly
supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which kh
is there by default. Bash isn't.
I don't actually care for most of the extra crap in either
of those shells. I don't want my shell to do line editing
or auto-completion, and I find the csh-derived history
mechanisms more annoying than useful so I turn them off
too. To my mind, the Research 10/e sh had it about right,
including the simple way functions were exported and the
whatis built-in that told you whether something was a
variable or a shell function or an external executable,
and printed the first two in forms easily edited on the
screen and re-used.
Terminal programs that don't let you easily edit input
or output from the screen and re-send it, and programs
that abet them by spouting gratuitous ANSI control
sequences: now THAT's what I call retro-computing.
Probably further discussion of any of this belongs in