1. if you want to install something, give you a choice of a container or native install? 2. or ONE set of repositories whose goal is to provide everything Ubuntu requires snaps for? If I have to add a repository for everything I want pure not snap, that could get ugly fast. especially since IME, I go to update maintenance, and it tells me it can't get to all my repositories, but DOES NOT LIST WHICH ONE(S) it can't get to. Sorry if this is a stupid question: can I request to install something from a repository, without adding that repository to be used for EVERY other install I want to use? Remember, you guys are all way more expert than I am. as an aside, is there any movement to demand Ubuntu indicate whether something you want to install from them is a snap or not? I just went to look for the fish shell, and it DID tell me it was a snap. It didn't tell me for all the other snaps it shoved up my (censored). My first reaction was "that's too deep inside the system, a snap is asking for trouble", no way Then I thought, huh? isn't a shell just one program, no matter where? ..well maybe not, as I said, I'm ignorant Then I thought, well, maybe a snap just to try it out a little, if that's positive, seek an apt install. Carey
On 08/17/2025 6:16 AM CDT bitmap via Talk <talk@lists.gtalug.org> wrote:
I did try it 2-3 years ago. I am mostly familiar with zsh but I would prefer GPL over MIT license so wanted to switch. Couldn't manage to get bash set up to my liking. And I had seen posts about how cool fish was. Some people really like it.
## I didn't like fish
I honestly cannot recall what barriers got in my way but there were a few. I know that I spent quite a bit of time trying to orient myself. Enough that I was able to confidently conclude that the problems I was having were "working as intended", "not a bug" situations. So just not for me.
This in contrast to bash: In that case, I think solutions to many frictions likely *do exist*. I just don't know how to do it owing to my inadequate skills. I haven't given up on bash, just put it away for the time being.
In general, when it comes to the shell trying to be too "smart", I haven't enjoyed these features. Prediction, correction, auto complete: just get in the way. I like my tab, arrow up/down, type to filter history or available arguments, etc.
## But I like the fish vibe
Despite the (admittedly vague) criticism I still appreciate fish. I think it's cool to do something to try to address the needs of users who want to use the terminal in a different way. The fabulous thing about the terminal, is it can do *anything* which is available to computing. The little box is limitless. So we should have experiments in how to communicate with the computer. To see what else it can do.
Particularly I respect the explicit goal of making the terminal more accessible, pleasant and easier to dive in. Only with the assistance similar initiatives did I manage to get functional in the terminal. I wish the basic methods would be more widely available to people who aren't hardcore nerds. But since that's the existing userbase, the tools are catered to them. So-called "libre" software is name only when even the most basic tools are hidden from view of most people. But how to address that?
### making something innovative for non-experts = tough
It's a challenging project to suggest users, especially novices, to ditch one of the most standard components of the linux environment. By which I mean bash or other POSIX shell. Even if you manage to design something that's *objectively better* for some use cases, there is no way to compete with the maturity and depth of community support available to a bash user. When was the last time someone asked a *novel* question about bash? Every conceivable situation has been iterated to death. Vs with fish, having a minuscule user base, it's way less likely to find a good thread etc to help in your own quandary.
And it is very difficult to think of exactly who the users would be. Example: Fish has a feature to edit the dotfiles with a web interface. (https://fishshell.com/assets/img/screenshots/web_config.webp) That's actually a real neat idea because editing text files with their weird syntaxes and code can be overwhelming at first. So somebody thought to apply the Unix Philosophy to this task and make it more approachable by feeding the dotfiles through a little webserver. Sweet. :) Similar to `xfce4-settings-editor` or `dconf-editor` but not making any demands on the GUI environment.
But where are we finding people who: run linux, use the terminal, know what a shell is, take the initiative to switch to a non-standard shell--- *and* who are too nervous to edit text files in gedit? Perhaps this experiment can lead to some general improvements in helping users to gain confidence in the linux environment, but the idea as it is currently implemented is kinda confused.
I think a new linux user is best advised to go with the most standard things when possible, as it will be more likely to find solution for problems. When you start introducing strange components, nobody can really help you. If fish had a stronger community presence it might be more viable. I don't really have a constructive idea about how to solve that.
## conclusion
overall: Not for me on a daily or even monthly basis but the world is better with fish.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2025, at 2:35 AM, Evan Leibovitch via Talk wrote:
Wondering if anyone here has experience with the fish shell https://fishshell.com/, which I discovered as it is the default in Bazzite Linux.
Non-POSIX-compliant by design, it appears to be far more advanced in tab-completion and inline syntax checking than bash.
("You'll never write esac again", they say...)
Has anyone tried it? Is it anyone's daily driver? Thanks! - Evan ------------------------------------ Description: GTALUG Talk Unsubscribe via Talk-unsubscribe@lists.gtalug.org mailto:Talk-unsubscribe@lists.gtalug.org Start a new thread: talk@lists.gtalug.org mailto:talk@lists.gtalug.org This message archived at https://lists.gtalug.org/archives/list/talk@lists.gtalug.org/message/JADOBOC...
------------------------------------ Description: GTALUG Talk Unsubscribe via Talk-unsubscribe@lists.gtalug.org Start a new thread: talk@lists.gtalug.org This message archived at https://lists.gtalug.org/archives/list/talk@lists.gtalug.org/message/Q7RCLVD...