• folkrav@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I feel you. It’s however gotten a lot better since I turned some of these commands into abbreviations. They’re aliases that expands in place, more or less. Fish has them natively, I personally use zsh-abbr.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fish is super useful, but I usually only start it up if I’m having trouble finding or remembering a command.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, it’s a good shell. I’ve found the lack of compatibility with some bash tools to be inconvenient enough that I just went back to zsh and found alternatives for the parts that I liked about it. Works well enough for me.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I’m relatively new to Linux in general (have only been on it for about a year and a half, but have taken to it like a fish to water), so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but what are some benefits to using zsh over bash? Are there any cons?

          • folkrav@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            Honestly, it’s just another shell. Both Bash and ZSH happen to be mostly POSIX compliant, so stuff that works for Bash tends to work with ZSH too. For me it’s mostly just about the stuff I can add to it - I use the antidote plugin manager to get additional autocomplete, syntax highlighting, suggestions, async prompt updates, that kind of thing.