Why don't we create default .zshrc config file

Why don't we create default .zshrc config file

[Volodya Khomchak]

Hi ,

I'm very new in using zsh and the first problem that I faced was .zshrc file.
In net I was able to find a lot of .zshrc file that was created to
match any user's needs but the
problem is that I didn't understand what does that all settings do.
Also just copy/paste someone's configurations isn't good choice
because who knows
what is there :).

Therefore why don't we create and automatically install .zshrc file
that will match common user's
needs, and will provide base zsh functionality and features to show
how this is cool.

Also this is little bit important issue because a lot of people don't
use zsh only because they can't work out
with configuration. I read one article and user said that I would
rather use fish because it works well for box.

Please don't just ignore this email and explain why you haven't done it,
this will do zsh more popular and I hope it would replace bash, because
it is awesome !

Thanks,
Volodya

Re: Why don't we create default .zshrc config file

[Christian Walther]

Hi,

I don't know how you installed zsh, but for most setups I've seen so
far "zsh-newuser-install" is launched on first startup.
If there is no .zshrc zsh-newuser-install dispays a menu were the user
can setup the shell on a convient way. All it takes is some time to
walk through all the menus, and the result is a working .zshrc.

This function is not run when zsh is used by root.

Regards
Christian Walther

Re: Why don't we create default .zshrc config file

[Nadav Har'El]

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010, Volodya Khomchak wrote about "Why don't we create default .zshrc config file":
> Therefore why don't we create and automatically install .zshrc file
> that will match common user's
> needs, and will provide base zsh functionality and features to show
> how this is cool.

Most Linux distributions I've used, including Fedora and Ubuntu, come
with /etc/.zshrc and the likes that suite the distribution's taste of
what is a good setup - and fits well with the rest of the software that
their users normally run. I personally hate it, because it forces silly
aliases (like colorful ls) and stupid configration options that I don't want
to use. But I can see how other people might like it...

Myself, the first thing I do on fresh fedora installations or upgrades is
"rm /etc/z* :-)

> Also this is little bit important issue because a lot of people don't
> use zsh only because they can't work out
> with configuration. I read one article and user said that I would
> rather use fish because it works well for box.

I don't think the solution has to be to have /etc/.zshrc and the likes.
A different solution could be to have useful defaults. What kind of things
would you like to be defaults that aren't defaults now?

> Please don't just ignore this email and explain why you haven't done it,
> this will do zsh more popular and I hope it would replace bash, because
> it is awesome !

I agree that useful features should not be hidden behind options that nobody
would guess. For example, "auto_menu" is a very useful feature that didn't
use to exist in other shells, and also wasn't the default in zsh. Now it
is the default. However, in my opinion, the current defaults are still not
perfect - e.g., I wish nomatch was off by default, correct was on,
interactivecomments was on, listbeep was off, and numericglobsort was on.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |          Sunday, Aug  8 2010, 28 Av 5770
nyh@math.technion.ac.il             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Always remember you're unique, just like
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |everyone else.