Re: how does zsh compare with other shells bugwise?

[whitech@qu_srd_f1.cch.com (Christopher White)]

> 
> 
> We're installing a central server and departmental servers here, and
> there's a discussion about which shell should be the default. People
> are trying to choose between tcsh and bash. Tcsh is more compatible
> with other unix sites, and bash has the advantage of a uniform
> language for interactive and programming use.
> 
> Obviously zsh fills both tasks, and has good support, since most bugs
> posted here usually get a fix pretty soon. However it still has a lot
> of bugs. Since the bugs are not easy to tickle, I wonder if it would
> stand being the default shell for hundreds of users, a whole
> institute. This is a big responsibility.
> 
> Can you out there make a comparison or give an opinion?
> 
> Carlos
> 
> 

We've been using zsh here for about three years.  We're using zsh v2.3.1,
which is a bit older, but is quite stable.  We don't use some of the extra
bells and whistles, which may have some bugs, but we use it EXCLUSIVELY to
write large, sophisticated shell scripts to control client-server
applications used in-house.  The couple of bugs we found in v2.3.1 were fixed
by getting patches from people on the zsh mailing list.  We're using it on
SunOS, Solaris, and Linux.  Personally, it's the best shell I've ever seen,
regardless of the few bugs that might exist in v2.3.1.  We're monitoring the
ongoing work on the newest version of zsh, but right now v2.3.1 works, so
we're not fixing it.

Hope this helps!

-- 
Christopher T. White
System Administrator
Electronic Product Design Group
CCH Incorporated
whitech@qu_srd_f1.cch.com