They also have a PPA now[1]. I'm pretty sure I looked a few months ago, when 2.0 hit, and it wasn't available.
[1] http://fishshell.com/files/2.1.0/linux/index.html#dl-ubuntu1...
Fish shell 2.1
121–130 of 154 posts
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#122For those who want to give fish a spin, it might be worth checking out the guide I wrote on the topic:
http://hackercodex.com/guide/install-fish-shell-mac-ubuntu/
I'll soon have it updated for fish 2.1.0, Mavericks, and the new PPA locations.
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#123With love: I always felt like fish and even zsh are kind of beautiful OCD-induced bouts of counter productivity in the same vain as Dvorak keyboard layouts and Plan 9. We can't handle things being messy and imperfect so we solve it by building our own parallel universes. What do you do when you have to use a computer without your customization? Perfect is the enemy of good, worse is better, join us on the dark side,…
Are we going to use sh and its descendants for the next 100 years? The original shells evolved out of macro processors, and as time went on, more and more programming language features were bolted on, but it's an uneasy fit. Take it for a test: go write a project euler problem (or any small programming task--doesn't have to be math) in your shell of choice. It's painful. There are weird features of shell languages th…
I would also like to see a more radical approach. E.g. one making use of graphic features. Why is my auto-completion completely text-based instead of being fully graphical like in a real browser? It's a waste of screen space having fixed row size.
Maybe evolution will also go the other way around: Nautilus and other file browsers have rudimentary shell-like use & feel, e.g. when searching for something. Extending that could create some interesting features.
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#124With love: I always felt like fish and even zsh are kind of beautiful OCD-induced bouts of counter productivity in the same vain as Dvorak keyboard layouts and Plan 9. We can't handle things being messy and imperfect so we solve it by building our own parallel universes. What do you do when you have to use a computer without your customization? Perfect is the enemy of good, worse is better, join us on the dark side,…
You can't have a blanket statement saying, fish is/isn't worth it, just as you can't say that with Dvorak or Plan 9. If you spend a majority amount of your time on one or a few machines, it can very well be worth it to customize your experience on those machines and face the drawbacks on the few times you are on a foreign machine.
On a side note: This is my computer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#125With love: I always felt like fish and even zsh are kind of beautiful OCD-induced bouts of counter productivity in the same vain as Dvorak keyboard layouts and Plan 9. We can't handle things being messy and imperfect so we solve it by building our own parallel universes. What do you do when you have to use a computer without your customization? Perfect is the enemy of good, worse is better, join us on the dark side,…
I think it's different for different people. I have tried fish for a while and then went back to bash because it just didn't feel worth it for me. I'm sure I'll come back to the new version, though.
But back in bash-land, _of course_ I alias "ll" to "ls -Flah". And when I'm on a system that doesn't have this alias, then, well, I just type "ls -la".
As others explained, just because I've customized my work environment doesn't mean I've forgotten to use the plain versions.
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#126I like the idea of fish, but I've had issues with other programs assuming things about my shell. Like vim and I think even other programs. There's something fish doesn't do, that other shells like bash and zsh do, that breaks other programs. I can't remember the specifics, but fish breaks stuff for me when I tried it, and I tried it pretty recently.
Yes, fish is not bourne shell compatible and never will be. Fish is as the name (Friendly Interactive SHell) suggests an interactive shell. You should just set vim/emacs/whatever to use a bourne-compatible shell. It's one line of vim config: set shell=/bin/sh
actually fish works with ansi-term under emacs without issue
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a zsh user, I am not really seeing the problem. Even Solaris had zsh in the default install. I don't see why avoiding installing an rpm/deb is any better or worse than not. For regular shell scripts I tend to still prefer #!/bin/ksh and not bourne shell (no bash is not bourne shell). I have to admit the line of thinking you're advocating reminds me of the vim/emacs "wars". With the "vim is on ALL THE SERVERS", wel…
Even Solaris had zsh in the default install. Actually, it's still part of the "default" group packages (similar to an installation profile). The default shell for new users (including root) is now bash though.
Heh, I haven't used 11 much I still remember it being in SUNWCXall or whatever that group was.
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#128can anybody tell me why this Fish shell shows some files by adding "*" at the end of it?
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#129Can anyone tell me if there is a substitute for history expansions such as "sudo !!" or "vi !$" ?
function sudo!!
eval sudo $history[1]
end
Re: Fish shell 2.1
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we going to use sh and its descendants for the next 100 years? The original shells evolved out of macro processors, and as time went on, more and more programming language features were bolted on, but it's an uneasy fit. Take it for a test: go write a project euler problem (or any small programming task--doesn't have to be math) in your shell of choice. It's painful. There are weird features of shell languages th…
I don't think we are disagreeing. From the tutorial in the OP: "If you have a strong understanding of other shells, and want to know what fish does differently, search for the magic phrase unlike other shells , which is used to call out important differences." "stdin and stdout can be redirected via the familiar . Unlike other shells , stderr is redirected with a caret ^" That's pretty, no argument there. But I alrea…
I'm not sure what you mean about setting variables and export, because here's how I do it:
set foo bar # sets foo to bar
set -x foo bar # sets foo to bar and exports it to the environment