On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am 30.07.2012 13:11, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
Am 28.07.2012 13:13, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
This installs zsh and sets it as default for root and the arch user. grml-zsh-config is installed as a userfriendly default configuration.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> ---
This might look controversial, so let me explain. As our new install method is based on the usage of various cli tools our plain ash setup gets a little inconvinient.
We don't have ash, we have bash.
Sorry for the typo. I also did one in the subject. :-)
This patch adds zsh and a feature rich default config. We will get menu
based completion and inline help for e.g. pacman but also our install scripts, rc.d and a lot of other tools. This should make the iso easier to use and more accessable.
Using a shell that is only known to a fraction of users doesn't make the image "more accessible".
I don't get your argument here.
I haven't found any real downside here, so let me know if you can think of any. Also please try it first if you haven't yet. E.g. try things like pacstrap -<tab> etc..
I never used zsh, so I don't know how much its syntax differs from bash, or from any POSIX shell. As a new user, I might find this irritating.
I am sorry, but as you did not at least try it I cannot really value your concern here. Also zsh is posix compatible. And I really doubt that bash users will have major difficulties or will even notice using zsh.
Anyway, as I already said, this is worth a try. Depending on users feedback I would be fine to remove zsh again next month. This way we also wont rely on speculations on what users might or might not do.
Greetings,
Pierre
-- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
I've used both zsh and bash, and for day to day use I don't notice a difference. However I'm not seeing the reasoning behind switching to zsh