What's wrong with using fish shell?

What's wrong with using fish shell?

It's not god tier powershell

It's not POSIX compatible.

Fish is pretty comfy, user. It's great

I don't know but it's about time bash died in a fire.

Shellshock's long patched, but everyone involved said the codebase is a clusterfuck, and they only fixed bugs that "looked exploitable" out of fear of breaking fuck knows what.

Are you saying you only use software that's defined by POSIX? How are you browsing Sup Forums then?

I don't like its auto completion
I still write scripts with bourne shell compatibility in mind because why the fuck not keep shit portable
feel free to use it though.

Fishy

Bloated piece of shit

Just move over to zsh and forget about the past

Nothing, it's the best shell.

Powershell has no advantages over traditional unix shells unless you're running .NET programs in it. KYS Shill.

You probably just have a slow computer or something.

>You probably just have a slow computer or something.
I have 16-core dual Xeon machine with a GTX 970, 32 GiB of DDR3-1600 memory and a RAID of SSDs as dedicated cache drive

Don't tell me my computer is slow

>shilling for free and open source software
wew lad

Yeah, and I have a shitty AMD FX-4100 that randomly has hardware faults every other day with 8GB of cheap-ass kingston RAM and I find fish far faster and generally more responsive than any other "full-featured" shell. Maybe you're just retarded.

I'm a free software activist.

I never even said anything about responsiveness, I think you're projecting hardcore here.

What I mean by bloated is e.g. IT FUCKING BUNDLES A WEB SERVER FOR CONFIGURATION WHAT THE SHIT

This is just wrong for a shell. Anyway, I'm quite enjoying my zsh startup times.

>he does it for free

It's not zsh.

Absolutely nothing, it's the best shell in existence and it's way above powershell or scripting language specific shells.

>his computer can't open fish as fast as zsh

Fish opens in an instant on my i5 with a regular HDD you retard

I don't even have fish installed, where did I say anything about fish startup being slow?

>implying you didn't imply it

> failing basic reading comprehension
gb2 ricing veem

Stay jealous

Please quote me on where I said that

>I'm quite enjoying my zsh startup times.

What did he mean by this?

I know what you're doing. You implied something that was stupid and now you're trying to walk it back. I'm embarrassed for you.

>What did he mean by this?
It was a reply to which seemed to imply that fish was somehow faster than other shells (e.g. zsh)

I'm saying that I notice no performance problems with zsh whatsoever

>You implied something that was stupid
See Please explain to me how saying a SHELL that bundles a WEB SERVER is bloated is somehow wrong

Also, here are some numbers to back it up:

fish is 34 Mb on my machine, zsh is only 7.7 Mb, bash is 7.0 Mb and regular sh is 971 kb

Horrible comparison.

Using a shell that isn't POSIX compliant on a POSIX OS is bound to get you in trouble. It's a bad idea.

It's not bloat if you use it. Fish is a far better shell so it's no wonder it's larger in file size. This means nothing. What matters is how they perform. Fish performs just as well as zsh for me.

What does that say about zsh? It says It's not any better than a "bloated" shell like fish.

kys.

Also sh is a piece of shit, by your logic quality goes up with file size, making fish the best.

The source is what matters

Not nearly as big of a difference as you try to make it seem. Go away zsh shill.

Your computer is shit desu

I wonder how this misconception perpetuates.

Do you think setting your login shell to zsh/fish/whatever is going to affect what shell scripts run in?

>zsh
>less data with more commits
Looks like both better development and less bloat to me.

Anyway, I don't care about file sizes (I have 16 TB of storage) or startup times (I have an SSD RAID cache and 32 GiB of RAM), what I care about the fact that HOLY SHIT MY SHELL BUNDLES A WEB SERVER FOR CONFIGURATION

To me that's the biggest red flag a piece of software could possibly have. If configuration is done through some shitty web interface instead of a plain text file like every other program in the world, it can be safely discarded

>fishill defense squad out in full force

Sorry your computer can't handle it I guess?

You sound pathetic, like the type of person who has a small penis but brags about it being 13 inches long.

Zsh isn't even capable of half the things fish does, also zsh has a web config BUILT IN too.

You retard.

The zsh web config is non functional though so it doesn't count. It's just dead code for the past couple years...

>also zsh has a web config BUILT IN too.
[citation needed]

I used the fish shell for a while but found some command and scripts were not running properly for some reason. I ended up jumping to zsh and just pimping that out and it's been fine since. I don't feel strongly about either, but enjoy the plugins and stuff I have now

I don't care that much, fish is just a superficial fix for things wrong in UNIX like environments.

Nothing, but I found that it has stupid decisions like making && not work and the !! macro not work because "fuck you i'm right"

wait, && doesn't work in fish?

dropped

Your GNU/Linux OS expects you to use /etc/profile, or you'll have to refrain to workarounds, same with vim, shit with PATH, no compatibility with existing things, every script on the Internet expects POSIX, fish is slow, completion is mediocre, "typing bash before the script name" is a pain, a lot of projects assume you use a POSIX shell.

>Your GNU/Linux OS expects you to use /etc/profile
I don't follow. Does fish not have environment variables or what are you trying to tell me? How is this relevant at all?

>every script on the Internet expects POSIX
Every script on the Internet also starts with #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash

>"typing bash before the script name" is a pain, a lot of projects assume you use a POSIX shell.
See what I just said. Every single script I've ever seen has the shell it needs to be interpreted with as a shebang, so it would literally suffice to just run the script as normal.

Are you pretending everything just works?

Basic things like ssh-agent and vim need workarounds when you use fish. Let alone plugins, less popular peograms. That's the lack of POSIX compliance.

I don't know, I've never used fish in my life. I'm just commenting on how it seems nonsensical to suggest that your login shell would influence what shell scripts get run in, when the latter is universally loaded via the shebang

There is nothing wrong with it user
Some just prefer other shells
Zsh is hipster garbage though

Zsh is fine too. The problem is the cancerous oh-my-zsh community.

I am a lazy man.
I use oh-my-zsh.

What's wrong with it?
Is it just the community?

>like the type of person who has a small penis but brags about it being 13 inches long
WEW LAD is that ever a projection

>Zsh is hipster garbage though
Seems like a strict improvement over bash to me

What's supposed to be hipster about it?

>not using mksh

If youha've successfully mastered 0.02% of what you're default shell can do, it's obviously time to move on to something more hipster.

That's because you're retarded. You know you don't have to set your login shell to fish, right? You can just put exec fish in your .profile.

This