Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> There are now new Linux users starting every day, and asking them to learn that less is better than more is not funny.

I think the article was more critical of commercial Unix vendors than Linux. From the article:

> Oddly, FreeBSD has done the most sensible thing; they've outright replaced more with less. There is a /usr/bin/more but it's the same binary as less and as you can see the more manpage is just the less manpage. OpenBSD has done the same thing but has a specific manpage for more instead of just giving you the less manpage.

> On Linux, more is part of the util-linux package but its manpage outright tells you to use less instead

The Free/OpenBSD choice seems sensible; presumably there are Linux distros which do the same. I imagine that if, say, Ubuntu or Debian makes a choice like this, it would propagate quite quickly to other distros; it would presumably be less of a breaking change than switching /bin/sh from bash to dash.

> It's time we dropped the "Bash is good enough" arguments.

I've rarely heard anyone claim "Bash is good enough". I do agree with the argument that bash is overused, and anything more than a trivial script should be done in a "proper" language (e.g. Python, which is installed by default on pretty much all Linux distros and OSX).

I'm not sure if there's a clear winner(s) for interactive use (i.e. a pareto improvement). Many use zsh, but I don't think it goes far enough. More radical alternatives like fish, ipython, etc. seem too fragmented at the moment. Maybe there needs to be momentum from a high-profile distro shipping such a shell as its default (while maintaining /bin/sh, /usr/bin/env bash, etc. for compatibility with existing scripts)

After using Xonsh and PowerShell, I'd be pretty happy if a Linux distribution did break from the pack and ship a radical alternative as the default, with a legacy bash installation as you describe.

Incremental changes probably won't spread uniformly - when Ubuntu switched to dash, the Fedora developers explicitly decided that they would not ship dash and would continue with bash, because they have to maintain total compatibility.

In discussions of the new PowerShell release I've seen quite a few comments that boil down to "PowerShell is fine for Windows, but we don't need it on Linux", and I feel that, yeah, we do need a much better shell because what we have is nowhere near the best that can be done. Everybody that's used *NIX for a long period of time has to adapt to the classic shell way of doing things, but we shouldn't be pushing this mess on the next generation.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact