Re: Good, easy to use, upstream defaults for zsh (i.e. improving usability)

[Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Mierle wrote:

> On 7/11/05, Nikolai Weibull
> <mailing-lists.zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Keir Mierle wrote:

> > > On 7/10/05, Mike Hernandez <sequethin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > On 7/10/05, Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > Though I'm not a developer, I can't help but reply to this.
> > > > I've used many linux distributions, and have built linux from
> > > > scratch (linuxfromscratch.org). I've also used FreeBSD and
> > > > OpenBSD, and OS X.  Each comes with it's own set of defaults
> > > > (apart from LFS which has no default zsh config, due to it's
> > > > being built directly from source).  Most programs leave any
> > > > customization to the end user.  If you use zsh with any of the
> > > > above mentioned OSes you'll find a slightly different set of
> > > > defaults.

> > > 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.

> > > > I would prefer, as an end user, that the developers focus their
> > > > efforts on producing the best possible shell, and leave the
> > > > customization to us.

> > > And as an end user, who on occasion tries to evangelize zsh, I
> > > would prefer if developers spent a a small amount of time making
> > > zsh work well, by default, most of the time, for most people.
> > >
> > > Me: Try zsh, it rocks.
> > > Friend: Ok, I got zsh. This prompt sucks. How do I fix it?
> > > Me: Go get a .zshrc from the net
> > > Friend: Ok, completion doesn't complete .pdf's for acroread like
> > > you said it would.
> > > Me: Go spend hours tweaking your .zshrc.
> > > Friend: Gah! Why don't they just include this by default?
> > > Me: Beats me.
> > > Friend: Screw this, I'm going back to bash. It's available on most
> > > platforms anyway,
> > > why go through the pain of copying around my .zshrc?

> > Same in Bash (for example), no?

> 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.

> > I hear what you're trying to do, but a Z-shell isn't a fish (wow,
> > that was a horrible pun),

> I'm not suggesting zsh become fish. I am merely suggesting that zsh
> should not suck, out of the box, by default.

I agree, but we can't hope to do that over a night,
        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);}