Apple Replaces Bash With Zsh as the Default Shell in macOS Catalina (theverge.com) 462
Starting with macOS Catalina, Macs will now use zsh as the default login shell and interactive shell across the operating system. From a report: All newly created user accounts in macOS Catalina will use zsh by default. Bash will still be available, but Apple is signaling that developers should start moving to zsh on macOS Mojave or earlier in anticipation of bash eventually going away in macOS. Apple hasn't explained exactly why it's making this change, but bash isn't exactly a modern shell as it's implemented in macOS, and a switch to something less aging makes a lot more sense for the company. Apple is stuck using version 3.2 of bash that has been licensed under GPLv2, as newer versions are licensed under GPLv3. Apple has kept clear of using GPLv3 packages in macOS as the license is generally more restrictive to companies like Apple that sign their own code and it includes explicit patent grants, too.
Running out of ways to annoy users? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wondering what the point of this is. Poking the prisoners to see if they still have the strength to complain?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong question. The right question is: how many users are going to have things break on them because some software that has been working reliably for years suddenly fails mysteriously because system defaults have changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Running out of ways to annoy users? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you understand that the article says they will be removing bash completely in a future release. Those of us with restricted IT departments are going to have to fight to get bash back. It's really frustrating, especially when bash is a critical part of your build chain or pipeline.
Re:Running out of ways to annoy users? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you understand that the article says they will be removing bash completely in a future release.
I understand that, unlike the OP, the sky will not fall when the MacOS version is released. I also understand that Apple will no longer install it in some indeterminate future as part of the standard OS. That does not prevent others from creating a package. That also does not stop Apple from putting it as an optional install that you have to get from their open source site.
Those of us with restricted IT departments are going to have to fight to get bash back. It's really frustrating, especially when bash is a critical part of your build chain or pipeline.
Why on Earth would your IT dept remove a shell from your machine that comes standard with your machine? Again sometime in the future you may have to request bash be installed. Who knows how many years and versions that could be?
Re:Running out of ways to annoy users? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you understand that the article says they will be removing bash completely in a future release.
If only (a) zsh was compatible with bash scripts; or (b) there was some way to install open source software under OS X / macOS ... Something as easy as typing "brew install bash" or something. If only.
$ /usr/local/bin/bash --version
GNU bash, version 5.0.7(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin17.7.0)
If you depend on a highly complex bash script that won't run under zsh, and you have that highly a restricted IT environment, change one of the two.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is “eventually” as in not day 1 of the new MacOS
Re: (Score:2)
Traditionally, Apple does not change the shell for existing users during an upgrade.
A.
Re: (Score:2)
This happens on every update of OSX :-(
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There are uncountable millions of script files out there that omit the hashbang. Live in reality please.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably the reality where careless and incompetent shell scriptors exist - I live there myself. Let's be honest - the 'nixes probably attract a greater percentage of good programmers than many platforms, but there's still plenty of careless and incompetent ones, and thanks to the pervasive open-source philosophy their perfectly-functional (under most circumstances) code ends up getting used by many others, usually without any auditing that would reveal such an oversight.
And besides - we're not really talk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, if it's uncountable it's none of the above.
It's like saying there is millions of milk out there.
And? You think that doesn't happen? (Score:2)
Users: when I upgraded Mac OS a bunch of stuff stopped working.
Apple: Not our fault.
Users download CentOs.
"You're holding it wrong" just doesn't work, even if it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
#!/usr/bin/env bash
You don't know for sure where bash will live.
Re: (Score:2)
Some do, some don't. Is Apple going to audit every script file in the universe to make sure it hashbangs and fix those that don't? (rhetorical question...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To get this straight: you posted numerous times about the sky is falling because Apple is choosing a different default Unix shell and when asked how different this is than all other times a Unix/Linux district chose a different shell, your response against what? “It doesn’t matter what I post”
OR
You don’t know what you’re talking about and when questioned, you have no answers.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I switched from a distro with csh default to one with bash I had relearn a few keyboard shortcuts.
If the sky falls that quickly, what happens when Gnome 2 turns into Gnome 3? Seppuku? Rage quit and study basket weaving?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it so important to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong
But you are wrong. If it doesn't have a hash bang, it isn't even a script, it is a feature if it stops working. Fix your shit and quit whining about your neckbeard being in a twizzle.
Anything that comes with an OS or mainstream application software will either already be written correctly, or will fix their fucking bug when it gets exposed. They won't whine about it, because it was their own mistake they're fixing.
Re: (Score:3)
More than you might think. At every work site I've been to in recent years, people using Macs were everywhere. And I'm not thinking of the administrative types or "the creatives" at those companies. It was the techies that were using them and working on the command line (and not just using the browser to access the internal web applications).
Re: (Score:2)
need to take root away to lockout NVIDIA / non apple pci-e cards in the new mac pro
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it is all about licensing as zsh is MIT-ish, bash is GPL. Since the GPL has been tweaked over the years to keep Apple from using it*, a change to zsh makes sense.
* people complain about ancient Unix tools supplied with macOS, and this is part of the reason. Luckily Apple keeps the old ones patched.
A.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect so too. IOW, Apple's love of proprietary licences is hurting users.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect so too. IOW, Apple's love of proprietary licences is hurting users.
Downmodded by a thin skinned Apple camp follower, I presume.
Oops got slimed by another one. It's Apple culture I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
> Since the GPL has been tweaked over the years to keep Apple from using it*
Really? I never got any sense that the license changes had anything to do with Apple. I'd say rather
"Since the GPL has been changed over the years in ways that keep Apple from using the code the way they want to"
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-Apple camp regularly assigns motives to Apple without a shred of evidence, so forgive me if I do a bit of it myself.
Apple introduced the App Store, and the next major revision of the GPL included specific language about end-user consumer devices. I am sure the two things were totally unrelated...
A.
Re: (Score:2)
More like seeing who would care - a Venn diagram of the MacOS user base and OSS advocates likely have some overlap, but likely not enough will even look to make or break Mac sales numbers.
There are other dynamics as well - one of which is that zsh was the sweet hotness about 4-5 years ago among quite a few kiddies in the DevOps crowd.
Finally, if anything, users who really want bash (my work laptop included) will just get and install bash (if available to mod/dload/compile), or stick a VM on the box to get w
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely "brew install bash" will still work. Most people who are "DevOppy" wind up installing the GNU fileutils and other stuff anyway.
I have a feeling bash will be there for a few more years, if only because of scripts needing it. I'm sure it eventually will be aliased so /bin/bash will be a link to zsh.
Re: (Score:2)
More like seeing who would care - a Venn diagram of the MacOS user base and OSS advocates likely have some overlap, but likely not enough will even look to make or break Mac sales numbers.
Yeah, ever since Apple became a phone company they've stopped being an OSS proponent and most of us who liked the NeXT crowd left soonafter for linux desktops.
Their intentions are telling in that they can't even grant the community any use of patents they have that might affect Bash.
The reason to keep /bin/bash around is f
Re: (Score:2)
Just wondering what the point of this is. Poking the prisoners to see if they still have the strength to complain?
Presumably changing to a better and more modern shell than Bash. Mac users tend not to be mossbacks, they just deal with changes like this as they come along. Those that cannot live without Bash, will just download a more modern Bash add-on package (if they haven't done so long ago to get the latest Bash version) instead of logging onto Slashdot to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something about "the definition of insanity".
Re: (Score:2)
I remember in the 90s asking people what the use case for zsh was, and it seemed to be very narrow; programmers who are triggered by Perl.
That might be a much larger percent of Mac users than of the general population.
For those people it is a much more pleasant experience than trying to use bash as a programming language. It can do it, but it should have known better.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a good change.
Is that an order?
Most users won't even realize it happened.
Until something that relied on the bash default breaks, which _will_ happen. Who is the beneficiary of this? Certainly not users. Users would be perfectly content with the old default since they don't know or care about it for the most part. But less than content with things breaking.
Re:This is a good change. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good change.
Is that an order?
No, he was stating an opinion.
Most users won't even realize it happened.
Until something that relied on the bash default breaks, which _will_ happen. Who is the beneficiary of this? Certainly not users. Users would be perfectly content with the old default since they don't know or care about it for the most part. But less than content with things breaking.
Like what? Scripts? Presumably they will have a #!/bin/bash header and bash will still be available. Or maybe bash commands embedded in code? Anybody who writes that kind of hack into a commercial app or serious system software needs a major refresher course in software development. Meanwhile devs will switch to zsh so I agree with him that the vast majority of users probably won't even be able to tell.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good change.
Is that an order?
No, he was stating an opinion.
Most users won't even realize it happened.
Until something that relied on the bash default breaks, which _will_ happen. Who is the beneficiary of this? Certainly not users. Users would be perfectly content with the old default since they don't know or care about it for the most part. But less than content with things breaking.
Like what? Scripts? Presumably they will have a #!/bin/bash header and bash will still be available. Or maybe bash commands embedded in code? Anybody who writes that kind of hack into a commercial app or serious system software needs a major refresher course in software development. Meanwhile devs will switch to zsh so I agree with him that the vast majority of users probably won't even be able to tell.
I guess the real impact is for users and organizations that use custom .bashrc files on login.
It's almost as annoying as changing peoples shells to adventure shell for april fools day.
Re: (Score:3)
> All the GPLv3 does here is make it slightly more annoying to use GPLv3 software.
look! an apolitical freeloader who never contributed to opensource!
You are too naive to see that GPL allowed you to use bash in mac os until today (i.e. until apple decided you don't deserve the cost). And GPL allowed that everyone using it on other systems, yesterday and tomorrow, will benefit for the little bug fixes apple was forced to work on thanks to being using it till now.
So, no. GPL didn't only make software harder
Re:This is a good change. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or fish. Fish shell is fucking awesome.
Re: This is a good change. (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPLv3 is the biggest bug affecting bash. It makes bash unusable for anyone who doesn't want to risk their software being inadvertently infected by such a viral license.
Using a shell isn't going to 'infect' your software.
Re: This is a good change. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is forcing *users* to do anything. The GPL forces *developers* to not co-mingle borrowed code with their own, unless they want to give their code away under the same terms.
There's nothing "infectious" about it - you can use and distribute GPL programs alongside non-GPL programs with no problems. What you can't do is steal the code for your own purposes without giving anything back. Calling that infectious is like calling a heart transplant infectious - the heart isn't jumping from one host to another, it's being intentionally cut out of one person and put into another. Just as must be done with GPLed code in order for the license to "infect" something new.
As for tyranny - is it tyrannical that you can't take whatever you want from the store and leave without paying? Is it tyrannical that the bank won't give you however much money you want without expecting you to pay it back?
No, of course not. So why do you say it's tyrannical that developers who are giving you their software to use or modify as you see fit, put a price on using their code in your own projects that you distribute. If you don't want to pay the price, don't use their code in your project, simple enough. You can still use, learn from, and even redistribute their program and its code under far more generous terms than you get with most software.
Could they be even more generous? Certainly, and the BSD and like-minded licenses do so. But Apple is a wonderful example of why many people don't want to do so: Large corporations take the work, profit immensely from it, and give little if anything in return. Why would I want to help Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc.,etc.,etc. amass greater wealth and power that they will inevitably use to harm individuals and society, when I don't even get anything in return?
Re: This is a good change. (Score:4, Informative)
...developers who are giving you their software to use or modify as you see fit...
You were going good, but then you went right off the rails on this part.
If code is licensed with the Apache 2 License, I can use it as I see fit. If it is GPL, I can't do that, that's a false promise you're making. I can only use it narrowly within the terms of the license. That's perfectly fair, as you otherwise describe, but it is a lie to say it means I can use it as I see fit. No, I'm using it as the author saw fit.
With Apache 2 anybody can use it as they see fit, GPL people, BSD/MIT people, proprietary people. All the people.
If code is proprietary, and I don't use it the way somebody else said, they might accuse me of stealing it. If code is GPL and I don't use it the way somebody else said, they might accuse me of stealing it. If code is licensed under the Apache 2 license, I can copy it and I don't have to worry about somebody else deciding that I'm using it right, or not. I get to choose for myself how to use it.
Re: This is a good change. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're conflating the program with it's source code.
The GPL puts no limitations on what you can do with my software, that's actually Freedom 0 of the Free Software definition: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"
The GPL also puts no limitations on what you can do with my code - modify it however you like for your own use.
The only thing the GPL limits is your ability to *redistribute* that modified code (or its functionality, in the case of v3's anti-tivoization clause) without paying the price you agreed to in the license.
There are certainly more generous licenses, but the GPL was specifically created to prevent the unilateral exploitation of the developer community that those licenses permit. Whether that exploitation is a good thing or not depends on your context and perspective, and even a good number of GPL fans will embrace MIT, BSD, or other effectively Public Domain licenses for projects whose purpose is to, for example, serve as a reference implementation of a protocol or file format that they want to see widely adopted.
As somebody on the receiving end of the gift, it's certainly nicer to have no strings at all attached - but there's a whole lot of people that like to encourage reciprocation and the community it builds. And do so with the force of law, rather than just good will and common courtesy, neither of which matter much to most corporations.
Re:Why should 2% of a program control 98% of it? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really did write 98% of the code yourself, then you shouldn't have much trouble writing the other 2% yourself either. And in fact even when such things do occasionally get discovered (which is rare, since it's generally not obvious that 2% was copied rather than reimplemented without comparing source code, which you can't do with proprietary software), the GPLed community tends to be very understanding about replacing the GPLed code rather than relicensing the rest.
The real problem, which does in fact get discovered regularly and cracked down on, is when somebody writes some "brilliant" program that's actually 5% their own code, and 95% GPLed code - either via lots of libraries (though those are often LGPLed specifically so they can be used in proprietary code, so long as they're dynamically linked), or somebody else's project that they've just "reskinned".
Sometimes such a situation might even occur without the infringing developer realizing it - they're only using a handful of functions from this library, what's the big deal? Nevermind the fact that those functions are actually quite complicated under the hood, and their combined implementations actually involve substantially more code than "your" program.
Re:Why should 2% of a program control 98% of it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you wrote 98% of your program yourself under a non-GPL license, and then used a self-contained GPL-licensed library of utility functions for the other 2%, then WWWWWTTTTTTTFFFFFFF should the 98% of the program all of a sudden be subject to the GPL????
It's religion!
GPL software is not freeware. It has a price, and that price is "don't copy it into software that has an incompatible licence".
If you're not prepared to buy the 2% of software in the code you wrote, then don't buy it. It really is that simple.
If you go into a shop and you aren't prepared to pay the asking price, feel free to try to negotiate the price with the owner of the item. You can't, however, claim that the price is too high and still leave with the product.
You're free to keep your product closed simply by writing all 100% of it, and not just the 98% you want to write.
Re: This is a good change. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Forcing users to give any changes to the community isn't "freedom". It's a form of tyranny, which is the opposite of freedom.
Only an entitled toddler would whine about being "forced" to share their changes after receiving a GIFT.
Forcing people who want to close it off by mandating they KEEP it open _guarantees_ freedom for EVERYONE, dumbass.
Stop trying to hijack the terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an entitled toddler would whine about being "forced" to share their changes after receiving a GIFT
If there are strings attached, it is not a gift.
Re: (Score:3)
Aaannnd cue the pedantic, pointless, argument over semantics. [stackexchange.com]
Open Source means different things: Gift, Present, Pledge, Responsibility, Prerequisites, Conditions, Terms, Strings Attached, etc., but whatever you call it is still Free, as in speech; and often Free, as in beer.
Hence the license to clarify the meaning since gift, present, pledge are ambiguous and all COULD apply. (You have to pledge _what?_ To not restrict the freedom of the software.)
If this is tyranny... (Score:2)
Forcing users to give any changes to the community isn't "freedom". It's a form of tyranny...
Nobody is forcing anyone to do this. It is the price that users choose to pay to use the software. Indeed if this is tyranny just think for a second about the commercial model: not only are you forced to pay money to get the software but then they force you to not share any changes that you make. By your logic that's more tyranny with a hint of extortion.
Now note bash gpl v2 vs gpl v3 (Score:2)
Power users will appreciate being rid of bash, which as this point is an antiquated dinosaur.
"Antiquated"
Initial release
- bash: 1989
- zsh: 1990
Latest stable release
- bash: 2019
- zsh: 2019
Go back and do it again with bash gpl v2 and bash gpl v3.
Re: (Score:3)
Where the difference between GPL v3 and v2 is:
Re:I wish Linux changes were like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Switch to KDE and much of your angst will be relieved. Beyond me why people voluntarily torture themselves with Gnome.
Re:I wish Linux changes were like this (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. Avoid Gnome like the plague ...
You can also ditch KDE for XFCE, which is simpler, lighters and stays out of the way.
I say that after using KDE exclusively as my desktop for over a decade.
I switched to XFCE a few years ago, after KDE started to dumb down some settings (notification duration), and Kubuntu missing some plugins that I rely on (weather applet).
Re:I wish Linux changes were like this (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wish Linux changes were like this (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst is systemd. This crap had screwed up my Linux installations so many times. It also offers me no benefits. It's harder to view logs.
Instead of cat /var/log/messages you have to say journalctl
Are you sure that is actually harder?
It's harder to start, stop and check services.
Weird, because on RHEL/Centos you can just use the old command and it translates it to the new command and runs that, and also reminds you how to run it the new way.
PulseAudio had caused me so much trouble.
You can turn it off and use ALSA instead. That made sense in the past, distros adopted PulseAudio before it was mature enough, but there is little reason now.
GNOME 3 gives an awful user experience, in my opinion.
The majority of Gnome 2 users switched to XFCE.
Firefox is so annoying and it still feels so slow.
Regardless of OS, you have to choose one of the same set of sucky browsers.
Linux could learn a lot from Apple and macOS about how to make good changes that users like, instead of making bad changes that users don't want.
Yes, and that lesson is to ignore you because you want somebody to tell you what to do, and Linux isn't good at that.
Holy Wars Go! (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, a proper Slashdot holy war!
I'm not a fan of bash on Ubuntu, because it just can't do tab-completion of filenames right. I've always been far happier with zsh.
zsh > bash
emacs > vi
Kirk > Picard
Come at me bro!
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody needs to be a jihadist to know that major changes to a computer platform made for nontechnical reasons is the road to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mit-like.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, a proper Slashdot holy war!
I'm not a fan of bash on Ubuntu, because it just can't do tab-completion of filenames right. I've always been far happier with zsh.
zsh > bash emacs > vi Kirk > Picard
Come at me bro!
I won't speak to the rest of them, but if by "Kirk > Picard", the symbol in the middle is indicating that Picard would eat Kirk for dinner, then yes ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I won't speak to the rest of them, but if by "Kirk > Picard", the symbol in the middle is indicating that Picard would eat Kirk for dinner, then yes ;)
Picard was the Borg's little bitch. Kirk would have seduced the Borg queen in the first 10 minutes, given her a good spanking, and had the Borg running errands for him by the end of the episode.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never used bash as my main shell. I used tcsh, then zsh when I realized (t)csh's command language sucks. I can't stand a shell that beeps at me (like bash and all GNU readline-based projects) instead of performing proper tab cycling. Makes me want to throw the keyboard through the monitor.
Also, emacs clones > emacs > vim > vi
Also, B5 > Star Trek.
This man speaks many truths.
Re: (Score:2)
"Kirk > Picard"
Somewhere, Sisko is having a chuckle.
Yeah, we need to get down in the details on this one. Are we talking about Kirk as portrayed by Shatner or Kirk as portrayed by some of the fine authors who wrote the paperbacks, because I think some of those did a lot more justice to the character.
#!/bin/bash (Score:4, Informative)
If you want you bash you can keep your bash.
Re: (Score:2)
#!/usr/bin/env bash
Re: (Score:2)
Traditionally it's either in /bin or /sbin, since it should be statically linked. That way if shit goes bad you can still get to your shell.
Tcsh forever! (Score:2)
Until I got rid of my Macbook earlier this year I was still using tcsh. That was the original shell for Mac OS X on release, and I kept using tcsh as well as keeping my personnalized .tcshrc file.
I tend to use bash on Linux servers or scripting, but on boxes I use regularly, I’ve switched it to tcsh.
Default shells on OS X, for fun and profit. (Score:5, Informative)
Mac OS X 10.0 -> 10.2, the default was tcsh.
Mac OS X 10.3 -> macOS 10.14, the default was bash.
macOS 10.15 -> ???, the default will be zsh.
When do we try ksh, just for fun?
Re: (Score:2)
Tells you a lot about Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Deliberately sabotaging its own user experience just because it doesn't want to comply with GPLv3.
Yaaaaassssss! (Score:2)
MIT like License (Score:5, Insightful)
zsh has a license that's pretty similar to MIT. Apple has kept away from GPLv3 and is trying to get rid of anything GPLv2.
Software is only Open Source today. It's not really Free. I've written about this before:
https://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-community-and-enterprise-software/
Re: (Score:2)
zsh has a license that's pretty similar to MIT. Apple has kept away from GPLv3 and is trying to get rid of anything GPLv2.
True, but it's important to explain why.
Apple Embraces MIT/BSD open source software because they will be able to Extend and then Extinguish it later on. GPL wouldn't allow them to do so, they'd be stuck at the Embrace step.
Re:You're wrong about that. (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual anti-Free license is anything copyleft, such as the GPL; those copyleft licenses use the coercive power of the State to force people at the point of a gun to behave in a certain way.
Nice one. There are no guns involved. If you don't like the terms of the GPL, don't use it. Apple clearly does not, but so what? The GPL is used by developers to get certain protections over their work. That's what it's for. If developers don't want those protections, they can use MIT or BSD style licenses. Companies like Apple can write their own software or restrict their usage to BSD or MIT licenses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to release your own private work as GPL. You only have to release it to anyone who ask and to whom you've distributed your binary. Basically, it's your public work which needs a GPL copy.
There is a reason indeed (Score:2)
But Apple is still working on that!
After the 50k workstation this is the best comedian story from Apple this week!
Congrats!
I want tcsh (Score:2)
Given its roots in the BSD branch of Unices, I would love to see tcsh back as the default (user) shell.
AIX has bash 4.4, what's Apple's excuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
AIX is as proprietary as anything, yet:
$ bash --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.12(1)-release (powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Sidenote: I'm mildly amused that this is newer than RHEL 7's currently bundled bash.
Re:Why is zsh better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the link says
With the release of Version 7 Unix in 1979, the new OS came distributed with bash as its default shell.
I think I'll completely discount anythng else it says. Unix/V7 came with "sh" (aka "The Bourne Shell") as it's default shell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say I wouldn't use zsh over bash. I just said GP's link is bogus, given that it gets such a basic fact incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is worse than that in the article: Bash did not even exist in 1979. It was first released in 1989. So no way it was included in ANY UNIX before that, let alone, being the default shell.
Re:Why is zsh better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's because it's a BSD system, not a GNU system. zsh has nothing to do with that.
You can still get all the gnu tools with brew install coreutils.
Re: (Score:3)
A comparison [sunlightmedia.org] between the two and why you should use zsh. Short summary: zsh is an extended version of bash.
In addition, zsh apparently does some things more like ksh than bash. For example, one thing that has always bugged me in bash is that this doesn't work as expected, or I would prefer, but does in ksh and zsh (correctly in my opinion):
Bash:
% echo hello | read foo; echo "foo: $foo"
foo:
ksh, zsh:
% echo hello | read foo; echo "foo: $foo"
foo: hello
The reason is that (according to the original sh/ksh specs) the shell may start items in an pipeline in either the current or sub-shells, but doesn't offer anything more specific. Ksh (and apparently zsh) starts the last item in the current shell and all preceding items in su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, very funny. Bash will continue to be ubiquitous while Macos continues to fade, fade away. Now evidently little more than a vanity project.
Wow, Apple troll got triggered by that vanity thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Like it or not, large press events like they had yesterday are tech news.
Re: (Score:3)
There is just some Apple event going on, all the news media are covering it.