Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 21456
- From: Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:23:05 +0200
- In-reply-to: <ef5675f305071222447f0fabb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mail-followup-to: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <ef5675f305071015374c036f2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3060c2390507101559320eb09c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ef5675f305071016226f9d44ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050711154439.GA5307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ef5675f3050711091356e9865@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050711170259.GD5307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ef5675f305071222447f0fabb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Keir Mierle wrote:
> On 7/11/05, Nikolai Weibull
> <mailing-lists.zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Keir Mierle wrote:
> > > On 7/11/05, Nikolai Weibull
> > > <mailing-lists.zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Keir Mierle wrote:
> > > > > So what? Did you stop to think for a second, that if the
> > > > > default zsh config didn't suck, then the various distributions
> > > > > might use it?
> > > > How are any of the other shells' defaults any better?
> > > They're not. They're just as awful. This all the more reason to do
> > > one better. Do you think Google, when creating Google Maps, said
> > > 'Yahoo maps and MapQuest can't pan without refreshing, why should
> > > we?' No, instead they said 'Hey, we can do something really useful
> > > the competition doesn't.'
> > Map applications on the Internet have been around 3-5 years, shells
> > 40-45? What I'm saying is that it seems hard to come up with good
> > defaults for shells.
> Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
And that's not what I'm saying.
> > > Exactly. Bash is just as bad. Which is precisely why we should do
> > > one (or two) better. Which is what we have to do to convince most
> > > people to switch-- the barrier is higher for zsh because it is not
> > > installed on most machines.
> > Yes, but then "bad" defaults doesn't explain why people are using
> > Bash over Zsh.
> Sure it does. Bash ships by default with most unix/linux installs.
> That's enough momentum to stop most people from switching. Look at the
> trouble Mozilla has had denting IE's marketshare with firefox; the
> pre-installed advantage is enormous. Firefox is way better, by
> default, and it's still having trouble!
No it doesn't; it doesn't explain why Bash ships by default with most
unix/linux installs. The reason for Bash being the default is that it
is GNU software and that it is closer, in a sense, to the old /bin/sh
than Zsh is.
Firefox has surely made a dent in internet explorers marketshare, but I
know what you're saying,
nikolai
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
- References:
- Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
- Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author