Bash or Zsh

Linux noob here.
What shell should I use?
Advantages , disadvatages?
What does /g use?

Other urls found in this thread:

ss64.com/bash/
wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh
pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sh.html
slideshare.net/jaguardesignstudio/why-zsh-is-cooler-than-your-shell-16194692
pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I use zsh everywhere possible.

fish.
Pros:
predicts your commands, auto complete, syntax highlighting out of the box
Cons:
Sometimes bash syntax will not work

really ? you write you shell scripts in zsh and a posix shell compliant shell or at least bash ?

your "Pros" are the default for every shell.

No I just use it because it las lots of cool stuff that bash doesn't have.

usually sh, because it's everywhere
at home: mksh, it's minimalistic and fast
i want to use rc but the autocompletion is a necessary feature for me

PowerShell

bash and zsh don't do syntax hilight by default. It's trivial to add to zsh, though.

Want a powerhouse with a lot of features? Use Bash.
Want a minimal footprint? Use mksh.
Do you like memes, nice looking promts and being gay? Use zsh.

I use bash and it's probably easier for noobs. Use whatever the fuck you want though as it doesn't make much of a difference.

For compatibility i install bash to everywhere, but i'm ok with the default (ksh, ash) most of the time on non linux platform too.

>Do you like memes, nice looking promts and being gay? Use zsh.
kek
Literally there is no legit reason to use zsh except being a fucking hipster.

the worst possible shell

Anything but bash is for noob that can't configure his PS1. Zsh toddlers get out of Sup Forums.

I tried using zsh, but the autocompletion features were much more annoying than those of bash.

Why don't you mention that configuring PS1 is fucking cancer ?

i use ksh

what's even the difference?i use zsh because hip. I se eno difference from bash

Learn bash and zsh. Bash gives the fundamentals that make zsh easier to use.
ss64.com/bash/

Hardmode: Use tmux, gracefully.

Use rc, plebs.

happy birthday

I use fish.

The only reason to use bash is if you're a sysadmin.

Hipster "culture" is purely cosmetic, I don't ask anyone to approve how my terminal looks like and that's among the least things I would give a shit of if people told me what they think of my computer.

Why would I need tmux when I have a wonderful tiling wm?

zsh is fucking bloat
srsly, why the heck do i need a tetris game in my shell

use bash

You're right. tmux isn't great for tiling terminal windows.
But it also has the feature to create remote sessions which is really cool.
For example you can be on your laptop and create a session on a server somewhere. Then you run a command on that server that possibly takes some time. But you can just close your laptop and later reconnect to that same session again.

>zsh
* many features and quality of life improvements
* powerful completion engine
* high emphasis on ease of use
* script language extended with support for stuff like lists, maps; better job control etc.
* people will consider it “bloated”
* you have to type “apt install zsh” first

>bash
* simpler shell, fewer features
* less “bloated”
* it comes preinstalled

I honestly don't know why any sane human being that uses a shell regularly would use bash over zsh, it has basically no redeeming features because zsh can do everything bash can do and a billion times more

>in b4 bloat
zsh binary is 825 kB in size and uses 30 MB of RAM (compared to 24 MB for bash) for me

It is very good if you are using ssh, have multiple users on the same system, or you have processes which you just want to check in on occasionally.
It is so much more than just a bad tiling wm.

hey tmux shitter

can you tell me how to make tmux stop mangling colors. I have a 256 color terminal but most of the colors don't come through properly when opened via tmux

24.825 is more than 24.
I mostly use bash everywhere because it is default.
The autocomplete is very predictable which I value over autocompleting from the middle of the word.

>do I want to pay 825 kB of my 14 TB of available storage space and 64 GiB of available RAM for the purposes of making the tool that I spend 10 hours per day using way more comfortable, efficient and easy to use?
hmm, that's difficult; I'll need a bit to think about it

Bash is the standard

Request for information:

What features present from the Bourne Again SHell (BASH) are missing in the Debian Almquist SHell (DASH)? What are the differences between the installations?

I am considering switching my operating system to debian gnu/linux and would like to know beforehand.

>What features present from the Bourne Again SHell (BASH) are missing in the Debian Almquist SHell (DASH)? What are the differences between the installations?
Basically absolutely everything. Heck, even stuff like echo -n is missing from dash

mksh because it's the best shell

wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh

based on ksh?

i use oksh which comes with my operating system because i'm not some dumbfuck ricer

Predictive autocomplete is for complete mouthbreathing homosex ass-suckers. If you seriously can't type, it's time to end it all.

?????

It's worse than COMMAND.COM?

>he fell for the linux meme
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

It's easier to manage hundreds of functions in zsh than bash.

>You can't precompile functions in bash

found the gamer/anime fan

>not using csh

Zsh with Oh-my-zsh and the Agnoster theme

It's so unnecessary

bash for casual use, Zsh if you're going full autist

mksh

just switched to zsh and it's great

bash because I've never thought "wow I wish I could do something but bash isn't letting me"

Bash all the way. It's the standard and easiest to learn. I'm not biased though so whatever meets your preference.

op here,
it's even worse than you can imagine. I fell for the thinkpad x200 arch linux i3wm meme.
Thanks /g...

ksh or tcsh

The standard?
pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sh.html

ZSH >>>> BASH

slideshare.net/jaguardesignstudio/why-zsh-is-cooler-than-your-shell-16194692

pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html