Was there any further work on this? I’m abuzz with a dozen ways I could use this, but there’s a ton of implementation details that I don’t understand.
Is every application compiled with its own set of type converters? If so, does that mean I’m stuck if I need a type conversion that the application author didn’t think to include? If not, then where are the type conversions stored?
If I have converters A -> B and B -> C, will the system automatically convert A->C? What if I also have A->D and D->C – which pathway will be taken?
If the type converters are on the system level and not the application level, that which converters are available when accessing a remote file: the local converters or the remote ones. For example, if I want to move a file around inside a zip file on a remote machine, it doesn’t seem possible to fulfill the promise of no copies across the network if the remote machine doesn’t have any code to handle compressed files.
This is neat but needs a lot more contributions :) I’ll generate a PR later today to add Altira, IMO the best Atari 8 bit (400/800/XL/XE) emulator by far.
Thinkpad X260, a NUC, and a cloud server from vultr. There are other systems that get netbooted at times, too. And a couple of older thinkpads that I don’t really use much any more.
Hey rocx, I second your list. But what advantage do you see on fish over zsh? from my perspective, zsh has better features also who can forget Oh-my-zsh project.
Allow me to chime in. I have used bash, zsh+omz, and fish shells, so would love to share my experience. My most current shell (for over 2years now) is Fish, and I absolutely love it.
fish is lightweight. It is snappy. zsh tends to slow down when you have a lot of plugins enabled.
you may need to install the autocomplete plugin in zsh, but it is baked right into fish. The tab-completion in fish doesn’t just parse through your history and available packages to suggest commands. It also allows you to autocomplete switches for commands, along with a summary of what switch does what (uses the man pages of the command).
[ex: pressing a tab after entering ls - brings up h, A, l, f, O, x as a list with the summaries. Useful when you need hints while executing pip/npm/docker commands or anything else.]
[ex2: pressing a tab after ls /va/li/gi, auto-expands the arg to ls /var/lib/git. Useful when you know where to find what, but dont want to type in a lot]
configuring zsh to your taste takes time (if you dont have the dotfiles), and those dotfiles tend to get large pretty fast when you start copy pasting stuff into them. On the other hand, getting up and running with fish is a breeze. It also has a ‘browser mode’, where you can configure the prompt, theme, aliases and other features using a friendly web-interface.
syntax highlighting is native to fish, and is very fast. I have seen zsh slow down or take time to process what’s written, but fish highlights it almost instantly.
error messages in fish are also more detailed or helpful, rather than in zsh, IMHO.
a lot of things in fish are configured using functions, which you can define and save separately. no need to have everything in one long file.
you can set and unset env variables temporarily or permanently, depending on your use-case.
zsh extends bash. fish is entirely different.
the scripting language in fish may not be entirely POSIX compliant (one tradeoff you have to make for speed), but the scripts are neater and cleaner. (think python vs C++). Neater organized code.
To summarize: fish is definitely lighter, and faster than zsh or bash. It is different, but what you get is time-saved because tweaking and configuring fish as per your taste isn’t a hassle. The few packages you may ever require, can be fetched using the “oh-my-fish” framework.
To give fish a spin, just do a pacman/brew install fish. Ubuntu requires you to add their ppa, which you can find from https://fishshell.com.
fish does by default what zsh requires you to configure. As the design document kind of bluntly puts it,
Every configuration option in a program is a place where the program is too stupid to figure out for itself what the user really wants, and should be considered a failure of both the program and the programmer who implemented it.
Kneejerk reaction to Ubuntu moseying on towards systemd for its init. Kind of silly, looking back. Why I stick with it now is because of its automated installer compared to Arch and its decent performance (<1min from cold boot to password entry to XFCE).
Was there any further work on this? I’m abuzz with a dozen ways I could use this, but there’s a ton of implementation details that I don’t understand.
There is a distributed adaptable microkernel called Off++ which implements Boxes: https://lsub.org/off/
This is neat but needs a lot more contributions :) I’ll generate a PR later today to add Altira, IMO the best Atari 8 bit (400/800/XL/XE) emulator by far.
Cool! Looking forward to it :)
Thank you!
what’s wrong with acme? :-)
What do you use sam for? I tried it a few times, but I never really understood it’s strengths, besides being an ed with a visual mode.
Editing text, mostly. I just don’t like acme much. (Also, since I can’t edit the parent post: ‘at’ is a typo, should read ‘st’)
There exists a vim port for plan 9.
https://vmsplice.net/9vim.html
Vim on Plan 9? That’s no fun. :)
What hardware do you run 9front on?
Thinkpad X260, a NUC, and a cloud server from vultr. There are other systems that get netbooted at times, too. And a couple of older thinkpads that I don’t really use much any more.
I used to run 9front in a Vultr VPS. It’s so nice that they let you upload your own ISOs; I wish more hosts allowed that.
rg.elAre you using Void with musl or glibc? I heard that Emacs support under musl isn’t that great, so if you’re using that, could you comment on it?
The GLibC edition. It Just Werks.™
hi rocky rock
lookin good
Hey rocx, I second your list. But what advantage do you see on
fishoverzsh? from my perspective, zsh has better features also who can forgetOh-my-zshproject.🤷♂️
Made the decision with a dartboard. Mainly using a stock Fish setup. The ability to
C-eto finish an autocompletion from history is nifty.Allow me to chime in. I have used bash, zsh+omz, and fish shells, so would love to share my experience. My most current shell (for over 2years now) is Fish, and I absolutely love it.
fish is lightweight. It is snappy. zsh tends to slow down when you have a lot of plugins enabled.
you may need to install the autocomplete plugin in zsh, but it is baked right into fish. The tab-completion in fish doesn’t just parse through your history and available packages to suggest commands. It also allows you to autocomplete switches for commands, along with a summary of what switch does what (uses the man pages of the command).
ls -brings uph, A, l, f, O, xas a list with the summaries. Useful when you need hints while executing pip/npm/docker commands or anything else.]ls /va/li/gi, auto-expands the arg tols /var/lib/git. Useful when you know where to find what, but dont want to type in a lot]configuring zsh to your taste takes time (if you dont have the dotfiles), and those dotfiles tend to get large pretty fast when you start copy pasting stuff into them. On the other hand, getting up and running with fish is a breeze. It also has a ‘browser mode’, where you can configure the prompt, theme, aliases and other features using a friendly web-interface.
syntax highlighting is native to fish, and is very fast. I have seen zsh slow down or take time to process what’s written, but fish highlights it almost instantly.
a lot of things in fish are configured using functions, which you can define and save separately. no need to have everything in one long file.
you can set and unset env variables temporarily or permanently, depending on your use-case.
zsh extends bash. fish is entirely different.
the scripting language in fish may not be entirely POSIX compliant (one tradeoff you have to make for speed), but the scripts are neater and cleaner. (think python vs C++). Neater organized code.
To summarize:
fishis definitely lighter, and faster thanzshorbash. It is different, but what you get is time-saved because tweaking and configuring fish as per your taste isn’t a hassle. The few packages you may ever require, can be fetched using the “oh-my-fish” framework.To give fish a spin, just do a pacman/brew install fish. Ubuntu requires you to add their ppa, which you can find from https://fishshell.com.
fish does by default what zsh requires you to configure. As the design document kind of bluntly puts it,
Behold! https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish
Audacious is so great. Simple and lightweight.
Looks nice and productive.
i will never be able to keep the same distro as long as you do rocx
Void looks interesting. What made you choose that distro?
Another happy void-user here. In my case, the package manager (xbps) and runit.
Kneejerk reaction to Ubuntu moseying on towards
systemdfor its init. Kind of silly, looking back. Why I stick with it now is because of its automated installer compared to Arch and its decent performance (<1min from cold boot to password entry to XFCE).OpenBSD is still using CVS and it works fine for them.