Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
Article by a Red Hat engineer that also makes a ton of contributions to FOSS in their free time: Don't change your login shell, use a modern terminal emulator
Interesting, I hadn't heard that take. I'll give it a read. Thanks!
My pleasure fam! Btw, I'm in no place to dictate what's right or wrong (or whatsoever). I just wanted to add their perspective on the matter*.
I don't know that I agree with the take represented in your linked article. If I'm reading it correctly, the primary reason not to switch shells is that those shells might not exist universally. That is a valid concern, but running
which fish
(as referenced in my original comment) should help to mitigate that risk factor. Scripts should always use a hashbang to specify their desired environment so, unless you're overriding that, it shouldn't be a concern.I agree that you shouldn't use shells that are not available to you. I don't think that means you shouldn't try to change shells if you are unsatisfied with your current one.