[arch-general] New install media 2012.08.04 uses ZSH, if I may ask, why?

[Oon-Ee Ng]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell at parts-unknown.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/06/2012 09:28 AM, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
>> On 6 August 2012 08:26, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists at yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> OT: Talking with an archer on irc about this thread and differences
>> between bash and zsh yesterday, he told me he uses zsh for a long
>> time now and it has quality improvements over bash like better code
>> organization (he told me zsh is modular), light on resources (I
>> expected zsh to be heavier) and that even zsh is speedier than bash
>> O_o May be I need to give zsh another review?
>>
> I was only being a little bit snarky yesterday. But in truth, it isn't
> just zsh features I prefer. For me, the ways in which zsh is
> preferably incompatible with bash aren't just in zsh features (which
> are indeed very cool) but in the ways that it interprets command
> lines--ways which I think zsh handles more intuitively correctly.
>
> But that latter is an issue. It may break an (I assume) unknown number
> of existing scripts if used for sh, so I think the likely conclusion
> would be that *both* bash (for sh compatibility) and zsh would have to
> be installed. I'm not opposed to this, but I'll certainly concede that
> there are valid points to be made in opposition.

In true Arch fashion, some of the community would need to test out
exactly what breaks =). Perhaps an AUR package which replaces/provides
bash and consists of a symlink to zsh would be a test suitable for
that (not that I'm likely to try that out anytime soon...)