how does zsh compare with other shells bugwise?

how does zsh compare with other shells bugwise?

[Carlos Carvalho]

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

Re: how does zsh compare with other shells bugwise?

[Nicholas Vargish]

> Can you out there make a comparison or give an opinion?

Zsh has been the default "new user shell" here for the past year and a half,
mostly my doing (I'm on a "stamp out tcsh" crusade). I'd say we have about thirty users running zsh... Most of the actual bugs haven't affected them,
since they don't do a lot of "fancy" stuff with their shells.

Nick

 +------------------------------------+  "This house is dark."                 
 | Nick Vargish, BBN Planet (SURAnet) |  "Madman, thou errest: I say, there    
 |   vargish@sura.net  301/489-8134   |      is no darkness but ignorance."    
 |    http://www.sura.net/~vargish    |        [Shakespeare, Twelfth Night]   

Re: how does zsh compare with other shells bugwise?

[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

Re: how does zsh compare with other shells bugwise?

[Karl E. Vogel]

>> On Mon, 14 Aug 1995 11:46:04 -0300, 
>> Carlos Carvalho <carlos@snfep1.if.usp.br> said:

C> Obviously zsh [...] has good support, since most bugs posted here usually
C> get a fix pretty soon. However it still has a lot of bugs. Since the bugs
C> are not easy to tickle, I wonder if it would stand being the default
C> shell for hundreds of users, a whole institute.

   I've been using it as my shell for several years with no complaints, and
   I've tried tcsh and bash as well.  I don't use it for scripts because
   /bin/sh is a lot smaller.  Other than that, I wouldn't hesitate to
   recommend it for an institute.

-- 
Karl Vogel                                        vogelke@c17mis.wpafb.af.mil
Control Data Systems, Inc.           ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433