Well, technically, it’s not broken, just slower

It’s a choice I can live without, I see the appeal of !! but usually, history is informative only, if I want something reusable, I write a function.

Ah, okay.

It shows that I’m not using POSIX shells

Yeah, I wasn’t sure there, the question mark was supposed to apply to all shells…

These additions are about user familiarity, not inter-shell compatibility is my point. Fish and bash are fundamentally incompatible. Just because they share keywords doesn’t mean they’re compatible. You wouldn’t say Rust got Python compatible just because it introduced a keyword or a concept from it.

Yeah, fish is a very comfortable shell in all regards. The standard installation does basically about 90% of what you typically want, probably more. Just very sensible in all aspects

No, but I feel bad when I need to deploy a big package for a bit of scripting.

For example, nushell is about 160 MB installed… which I find a bit much. It’s fine on my desktop, but I also have machines where this would be a significant addition.

I’m not the biggest fan of bash either, there’s a reason I use fish, though I also like elvish for interactive use (though it’s rather young all things considered) and in maybe going to use YSH for my next script project as that shell is very small (2MB or so) and yet makes sense.

Fish is really a pleasant shell, nothing groundbreaking but it’s just nice.

That said, I wouldn’t speak of “bash compatibility” just because another symbol/ operator from bash can now be used in fish (this happens sometimes), but this isn’t for compatibility but rather so that you don’t need to learn the fish equivalent. Fish has a different syntax from bash (e.g. command substitution doesn’t use $, no do in for loops…) so they’ll never be compatible. There are bash compatible shells out there (I guess zsh, dash and probably oil?), but fish isn’t and doesn’t try to be.

NixOS went from not being visible to… beating Manjaro!

Whatever that’s supposed to tell

This is what GPT was invented for

Almost, as I said, arch-chroot didn’t exist back then, and while the official method is still manual, archinstall is part of the official ISO, while back then, no helper was provided, so you had to do it manually.

archinstall?

Back in my day, we needed to do all of that by hand, and there wasn’t even arch-chroot, no, we had to bind mount dev, proc and and sys manually as well!

Though in fairness, before that, there was the AIF, which I also used, but that doesn’t sound so manly.

Thanks, was wondering

You could also try replacing the steam lib with an emulator like https://mr_goldberg.gitlab.io/goldberg_emulator/

It’s a cool shell, I use it as a daily driver (though I’m keeping a close eye on elvish which syntactically is even further away from classic shell), but the comments read like fish is basically zsh. And while zsh is pretty close to bash, fish isn’t.

Be aware that fish isn’t a POSIX-compatible shell enough, so you have to adjust syntax.

pacman is very fast and handy. The (in)famous pacman -Syu had you system completely up to date in record time.

Sometimes I miss its speed and simplicity

Well, at least for nginx, you can specify the root (or alias if required) directive; to me, it makes very little sense to rely on defaults, you need to specify your servers / virtual hosts anyways, might as well make the configuration more self-documenting…

There’s also https://uapi-group.org/specifications/specs/linux_file_system_hierarchy/ nowadays, which aims to build on the FHS.