this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
333 points (98.0% liked)

Linux

58196 readers
845 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by AlpΓ‘r-Etele MΓ©der, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been trying nushell and words fail me. It's like it was made for actual humans to use! 🀯 🀯 🀯

It even repeats the column headers at the end of the table if the output takes more than your screen...

Trying to think of how to do the same thing with awk/grep/sort/whatever is giving me a headache. Actually just thinking about awk is giving me a headache. I think I might be allergic.

I'm really curious, what's your favorite shell? Have you tried other shells than your distro's default one? Are you an awk wizard or do you run away very fast whenever it's mentioned?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Magnum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 hours ago

Sorry I am vegan

[–] apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml 10 points 19 hours ago

I used nushell for a good 6 months, it was nice having structured data, but the syntax difference to bash which I use for my day job was just too jarring to stick with.

Fish was (for me) the right balance of nice syntactic sugar and being able to reasonably expect a bash idiom will work.

[–] GooseFinger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago

I'm an absolute Linux tard, so it's hilarious to me trying to read and understand most of these comments

[–] priapus@piefed.social 12 points 23 hours ago

I love Nushell, it's so much more pleasant for writing scripts IMO. I know some people say they'd just use Python if they need more than what a POSIX shell offers, but I think Nushell is a perfect option in between.

With a Nushell scripts you get types, structured data, and useful commands for working with them, while still being able to easily execute and pipe external commands. I've only ever had two very minor gripes with Nushell, the inability to detach a process, and the lack of a -l flag for cp. Now that uutils supports the -l flag, Nushell support is a WIP, and I realized systemd-run is a better option than just detaching processes when SSHd into a server.

I know another criticism is that it doesn't work well with external cli tools, but I've honestly never had an issue with any. A ton of CLI tools support JSON output, which can be piped into from json to make working with it in Nushell very easy. Simpler tools often just output a basic table, which can be piped into detect columns to automatically turn it into a Nushell table. Sometimes strange formatting will make this a little weird, but fixing that formatting with some string manipulation (which Nushell also makes very easy) is usually still easier than trying to parse it in Bash.

[–] syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de 49 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I've been using fish (with starship for prompt) for like a year I think, after having had a self-built zsh setup for … I don't know how long.

I'm capable of using awk but in a very simple way; I generally prefer being able to use jq. IMO both awk and perl are sort of remnants of the age before JSON became the standard text-based structured data format. We used to have to write a lot of dinky little regex-based parsers in Perl to extract data. These days we likely get JSON and can operate on actual data structures.

I tried nu very briefly but I'm just too used to POSIX-ish shells to bother switching to another model. For scripting I'll use #!/bin/bash with set -eou pipefail but very quickly switch to Python if it looks like it's going to have any sort of serious logic.

My impression is that there's likely more of us that'd like a less wibbly-wobbly, better shell language for scripting purposes, but that efforts into designing such a language very quickly goes in the direction of nu and oil and whatnot.

[–] Overspark@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago

nu 's commands also work on JSON, so you don't really need jq (or xq or yq) any more. It offers a unified set of commands that'll work on almost any kind of structured data.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fontasia@feddit.nl 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That looks a lot like PowerShell

[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

PowerShell without the awful syntax

[–] brianary@lemmy.zip 5 points 18 hours ago

What awful syntax?

Ffs bash uses echo "${filename%.*}" and substring=${string:0:5} and lower="${var,,}" and title="${var^}" &c. It doesn't use $ for assignment, only in expressions.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Nushell looks cool but I prefer to stick with the POSIXes so that I know my scripts will always work and syntax always does what I expect it to. I use zsh as a daily driver, and put up with various bashes, ashes, dashes, that come pre-installed with systems I won't be using loads (e.g. temporary vms).

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Always confuses me when people say this. You can use multiple different shells / scripting languages, just as you can use multiple programming languages.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If you want your scripts to "always work" you'll need to go with the most common/standard language, because the environments you work on might not be able to use all of those languages.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I mean if all your scripts are fully general purpose. That just seems really weird to me. I don't need to run my yt-dlp scripts on the computational clusters I work on.

Moreover, none of this applies to the interactive use of the shell.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not only clusters.. I have my shell configuration even in my Android phone, where I often connect to by ssh. And also in my Kobo, and in my small portable console running Knulli.

In my case, my shell configuration is structured in some folders where I can add config specific to each location while still sharing the same base.

Maybe not everything is general, but the things that are general and useful become ingrained in a way that it becomes annoying when you don't have them. Like specific shortcuts for backwards history search, or even some readline movement shortcuts that apparently are not standard everywhere.. or jumping to most 'frecent' directory based on a pattern like z does.

If you don't mind that those scripts not always work and you have the time to maintain 2 separate sets of configuration and initialization scripts, and aliases, etc. then it's fine.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

those scripts not always work

This feels like ragebait. I have multiple devices, use fish whenever that can be installed and zsh/bash when not, and have none of these issues.

EDIT:

or some methods to jump to most recent directory like z.

Manually downloading the same shell scripts on every machine is just doing what the package manager is supposed to do for you. I did this once to get some rust utils like eza to get them to work without sudo. It's terrible.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Manually downloading the same shell scripts on every machine is just doing what the package manager is supposed to do for you

If you have a package manager available, and what you need is available there, sure. My Synology NAS, my Knulli, my cygwin installs in Windows, my Android device.. they are not so easy to have custom shells in (does fish even have a Windows port?).

I rarely have to manually copy, in many of those environments you can at least git clone, or use existing syncing mechanisms. In the ones that don't even have that.. well, at least copying the config works, I just scp it, not a big deal, it's not like I have to do that so often.. I could even script it to make it automatic if it ever became a problem.

Also, note that I do not just use things like z straight away.. my custom configuration automatically calls z as a fallback when I mistype a directory with cd (or when I intentionally use cd while in a far/wrong location just so I can reach faster/easier).. I have a lot of things customized, the package install would only be the first step.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So you're willing to do a lot of manual package managing, in general put a lot of work into optimizing your workflow, adjusting to different package availability, adjusting to different operating systems...

...but not writing two different configs?

That is your prerogative but you're not convincing me. Though I don't think I'll be convincing you either.

I have separate configs/aliases/etc for most of my machines just because, well, they are different machines with different hardware, software, data, operating systems and purposes. Even for those (most) that I can easily install fish on.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

It's actually the lazy way. I only work once, then copy that work everywhere. The copying/syncing is surprisingly easy. If that's what you call "package management" then I guess doing "package management" saves a lot of work.

If I had to re-configure my devices to my liking every time I would waste time in repetition, not in an actual improvement. I configured it the way I liked it once already, so I want to be able to simply copy it over easily instead of re-writing it every time for different systems. It's the same reason why I've been reusing my entire /home partition for ages in my desktop, I preserve all my setup even after testing out multiple distros.

If someone does not customize their defaults much or does not mind re-configuring things all the time, I'm sure for them it would be ok to have different setup on each device.. but I prefer working only once and copying it.

And I didn't say that bash is the only config I have. Coincidentally, my config does include a config.fish I wrote ages ago (14 years ago apparently). I just don't use it because most devices don't have fish so it cannot replace POSIX/Bash.. as a result it naturally was left very barebones (probably outdated too) and it's not as well crafted/featureful as the POSIX/bash one which gets used much more.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

I only work once, then copy that work everywhere.

Good that works for you. If only my needs were so simple that the configs could be same on each machine.

paljastusI know that's an insufferable way to put it but holy shit have you been like that too.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

I know that. I just don't have a use case for alternative shells. Zsh works fine for me and I know how it works. I don't have problems that need fixing, so I don't need to take the time to learn a new, incompatible shell.

[–] elmicha@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Some people work on machines where they are not allowed to install anything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 17 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Your scripts should have Bourne shebangs

[–] syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, there should be a clear separation between scripts, which should have a shebang, and interactive use.

If a script starts acting oddly after someone does a chsh, then that script is broken. Hopefully people don't actually distribute broken script files that have some implicit dependency on an unspecified interpreter in this day and age.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] phantomwise@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I don't really mind having a non-POSIX shell since it doesn't prevent bash scripts from working, but I get that if you want portability bash is still best since it'll work mostly anywhere.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Obin@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago

I’m really curious, what’s your favorite shell?

Emacs eshell+eat

It essentially reverses the terminal/shell relationship. Here, it's the shell that starts a terminal session for every command. Eshell is also tightly integrated with Emacs and has access to all the extended functionality. You can use Lisp in one-liners, you can pipe output directly to an emacs buffer, you can write custom commands as lisp functions, full shortcut customization not limited to terminal keys, history search via the completion framework (i.e. consult-history), easy prompt customization, etc.

There's also Tramp, which lets you transparently cd into remote hosts via ssh, docker containers, SMB/NFS-shares, archive files, and work with them as if they were normal directories (obviously with limited functionality in some cases, like archives).

And probably a lot of stuff I'm missing right now.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I prefer getting comfortable with bash, because it's everywhere and I need it for work anyway (no fancy shells in remote VMs). But you can customize bash a lot to give more colored feedback or even customize the shortcuts with readline. Another one is pwsh (powershell) because it's by default in Windows machines that (sadly) I sometimes have to use as VMs too. But you can also install it in linux since it's now open source.

But if I wanted to experiment personally I'd go for xonsh, it's a python-based one. So you have all the tools and power of python with terminal convenience.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LaggyKar@programming.dev 18 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Looks like it's taken a page from PowerShell in passing structured data rather than just text.

[–] Overspark@piefed.social 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, it has. I think they started out as loving the concepts of PowerShell but hating the implementation, combined with the fact that PowerShell is clearly a Windows-first shell and doesn't work so well on other OSes (it surprised me a lot to find out that PowerShell even has support for linux).

nu tries to implement these concepts in a way that's more universal and can work equally well on Linux, macOS or Windows.

Powershell works really well on other OSs now. I use it on MacOS and Linux daily. I might loath MS but Powershell is a fantastic shell and after working with an object-oriented shell I hate going back to anything else.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bastion@feddit.nl 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I like nushell, but I love xonsh. Xonsh is the bastard love child of Python and Bash.

it can be thought of as:

  • try this statement in Python
  • if there's an exception, try it in bash.

Now, that's not a very accurate description, because the reality is more nuanced, but it allows for things like:

for file in !(find | grep -i '[.]mp3^'):
    file = Path(file.strip())
    if file != Path('.') and file != file.with_suffix('.mp3'):
    mv @(file) @(file.with_suffix('.mp3'))

Now, there are things in there I wouldn't bother with normally - like, rather than using mv, I'd just use file.rename(), but the snippet shows a couple of the tools for interaction between xonsh and sh.

  • !(foo) - if writing python, execute foo, and return lines
  • @(foo) - if writing sh, substitute with the value of the foo variable.

But, either a line is treated in a pyhony way, or in a shelly way - and if a line is shelly, you can reference Python variables or expressions via @(), and if it's Pythony, you can execute shell code with !() or $(), returning the lines or the exact value, respectively.

Granted, I love python and like shell well enough, and chimeras are my jam, so go figure.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ronigami@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Until you discover nushell’s (lack of) quoting rules

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] h4x0r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 18 hours ago

Formatting doesn't like my input for some reason so I am just going to shorten it to ls -ltc | grep '>'.

[–] DasFaultier@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

'cause it was quarter part eleven on a Saturday in 1999

🎢🎢

To answer your questions, I work on the Bash, because it's what's largely used at work and I don't have the nerve to constantly make the switch in my head. I have tried nushell for a few minutes a few months ago, and I think it might actually be great as a human interface, but maybe not so much for scripting, idk.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Cat_Daddy@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago

I've had nushell as my daily driver for a couple years now and I love it. "Made for actual humans to use" is exactly the description I'd give.

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 23 hours ago

So you drive daily with nushell and then script in bash for portability?

Sounds not bad actually...

[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I use zsh, mainly because I’ve been using it for a really long time and it felt like an upgraded bash.

I also have used fish a tiny amount and like the idea but zsh just works for my purposes and I already know how it works.

nushell looks really cool though!

I don’t have much occasion to use awk any more but it can be really useful!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί