Fish rules
-
fish, the friendly interactive shell, is a commandline shell intended to be interactive and user-friendly.
fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
-
fish, the friendly interactive shell, is a commandline shell intended to be interactive and user-friendly.
fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
Switching to dash
-
fish, the friendly interactive shell, is a commandline shell intended to be interactive and user-friendly.
fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
I really like Fish but for simple stuff like youtube-dl you always have to put quotation marks around the YouTube video’s address because Fish thinks the question mark is an operator. So annoying.
-
I really like Fish but for simple stuff like youtube-dl you always have to put quotation marks around the YouTube video’s address because Fish thinks the question mark is an operator. So annoying.
Fixed in fish 4.0
-
fish, the friendly interactive shell, is a commandline shell intended to be interactive and user-friendly.
fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
Non English speaker here . don’t you mean “non POSIX compliant” instead of “POSIX non compliant” ?or is it a hint at the fact that it is designed to actually be non compliant?
-
fish, the friendly interactive shell, is a commandline shell intended to be interactive and user-friendly.
fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
I just switched to fish for the pretty colors and quality of life features. Anything I should keep in mind while using it as a Linux noob? I don’t even know who POSIX is lol.
-
I just switched to fish for the pretty colors and quality of life features. Anything I should keep in mind while using it as a Linux noob? I don’t even know who POSIX is lol.
I HIGHLY recommend using bash and zsh as posix-compliant shells at the beginning, then if you want something different; you can use whatever the hell you want. Nushell, fish, etc.
-
Non English speaker here . don’t you mean “non POSIX compliant” instead of “POSIX non compliant” ?or is it a hint at the fact that it is designed to actually be non compliant?
“non-POSIX compliant” = compliant with non-POSIX (whatever “non-POSIX” may be)
“POSIX non-compliant” = not compliant with POSIX
The best way to say what OP did would be a simple “not POSIX compliant”. Looking back, that’s exactly what was said in the post. The meme itself is, unfortunately a different story.
Posix non-compliant was used in the meme because the author wanted to save on words in the puchline. “Using a shell not POSIX compliant” lacks a few words and is syntactically incorrect. “Using a POSIX non-compliant shell” saves on words, and is syntactically correct, but makes the sentence more complex.
All in all, the “non-” prefix is a bit finicky in english and can usually be avoided.
-
Fixed in fish 4.0
Fixed in fish 4.0
*reinstalling Fish right now*
-
“non-POSIX compliant” = compliant with non-POSIX (whatever “non-POSIX” may be)
“POSIX non-compliant” = not compliant with POSIX
The best way to say what OP did would be a simple “not POSIX compliant”. Looking back, that’s exactly what was said in the post. The meme itself is, unfortunately a different story.
Posix non-compliant was used in the meme because the author wanted to save on words in the puchline. “Using a shell not POSIX compliant” lacks a few words and is syntactically incorrect. “Using a POSIX non-compliant shell” saves on words, and is syntactically correct, but makes the sentence more complex.
All in all, the “non-” prefix is a bit finicky in english and can usually be avoided.
Wouldn’t it be more like “non POSIX-compliant”? That’s how I would understand it, though I’m not a native speaker
-
I HIGHLY recommend using bash and zsh as posix-compliant shells at the beginning, then if you want something different; you can use whatever the hell you want. Nushell, fish, etc.
WIll I be able to take my shell with on to every other computer I meet ? I mean, these things are tiny, but how portable are shells ?
I don’t want to learn a bunch of useful custom commands and then become frustrated to do anything on every computer other than mine.That’s why I have a qwerty keyboard, I don’t want to become useless whenever I have to use a keyboard that isn’t my keyboard…
-
fish, the friendly interactive shell, is a commandline shell intended to be interactive and user-friendly.
fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
Nah, fuck that. I’m using yash.
-
Fixed in fish 4.0
*reinstalling Fish right now*
reinstalling Fish right now
Alright:
> /usr/bin/fish --version fish, version 4.0.1For whatever reason openSUSE doesn’t ship 4.0.2 despite the fact that it’s in its development repo since months. Oh well, could be worse.
-
I HIGHLY recommend using bash and zsh as posix-compliant shells at the beginning, then if you want something different; you can use whatever the hell you want. Nushell, fish, etc.
I HIGHLY recommend using bash and zsh as posix-compliant shells at the beginning
Why? All the usual shell scripts don’t use Fish as interpreter.
-
WIll I be able to take my shell with on to every other computer I meet ? I mean, these things are tiny, but how portable are shells ?
I don’t want to learn a bunch of useful custom commands and then become frustrated to do anything on every computer other than mine.That’s why I have a qwerty keyboard, I don’t want to become useless whenever I have to use a keyboard that isn’t my keyboard…
Fish is not the worst in this regard, because:
- The defaults are pretty good, so you don’t typically need a config file for it to be usable.
- As of version 4.0, Fish is (experimentally) available as a single executable for download from their GitHub page. So, even on hosts where you can’t install anything, you may still be able to copy that executable file onto there and use it.
But there may still be situations where it’s annoying, like if you’re working in a container, then you likely don’t want to mount your
fishexecutable every time.But I also have to say I don’t find it too big of a deal.
I still use Bash for scripting (just throw a#!/bin/shor#!/bin/bashat the top of your script, like you should anyways), and then for interactive use, not that much of the shell syntax comes into play anyways.
And if I ever do need to copy a complex Bash command into an interactive shell, I can just runbash, then run the command in there and thenexitback out. -
Wouldn’t it be more like “non POSIX-compliant”? That’s how I would understand it, though I’m not a native speaker
This is the way I see it too. Treat “POSIX-compliant” as an adjective and negate it.
-
reinstalling Fish right now
Alright:
> /usr/bin/fish --version fish, version 4.0.1For whatever reason openSUSE doesn’t ship 4.0.2 despite the fact that it’s in its development repo since months. Oh well, could be worse.
Ask the maintainer to push the update to Factory.
-
I HIGHLY recommend using bash and zsh as posix-compliant shells at the beginning
Why? All the usual shell scripts don’t use Fish as interpreter.
No posix compliance is a headache. (Where the hell are my aliases!?)
And also most scripts need to be executed in a posix-compliant shell. -
No posix compliance is a headache. (Where the hell are my aliases!?)
And also most scripts need to be executed in a posix-compliant shell.why use aliases (they exist in fish) when you can use abbreviations and your history isnt determined by whatever you set your aliases up as? If you change an alias, your history does not reflect that. If you use abbreviations, your history is perfectly usable
-
why use aliases (they exist in fish) when you can use abbreviations and your history isnt determined by whatever you set your aliases up as? If you change an alias, your history does not reflect that. If you use abbreviations, your history is perfectly usable
The fuck is an abbreviation? Is it a knock-off alias?
