On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Gour <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:48:51 +0800 >>>>>>> "Grissiom" == Grissiom wrote: > > Grissiom> Yes, fish is slower than bash/zsh. > > What else might be said about fish vs. zsh? >
Different syntax, different "philosophy".... If you have fish installed on your box, just try "help" in fish, you can see plenty of info there. To be short, fish is more DE friendly than Zsh/Bash. > zsh is my default shell atm, but besides some completion, I do not use > much of its power and when considering to use fish (again) I'm > thinking that it may be better to learn one shell (zsh) thoroughly > than pretending to be zsh user. What do you think? > Hmm, I'm not a system admin guru at all. But I think if you don't need to do a lot of shell scripting, fish is good to use. For shell, I think daily using is light-weighted and need little effort on it (I think it should be that way). If you write a lot of scripts, that will be a different story. Anyway, you can still program shell while you are using fish, right? ;) -- Cheers, Grissiom > btw, how long is web site down? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
