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

[Keir Mierle <mierle@gmail.com>]

On 7/11/05, Nikolai Weibull
<mailing-lists.zsh-workers@rawuncut.elitemail.org> wrote:
> Keir Mierle wrote:
> 
> > On 7/11/05, Nikolai Weibull
> > <mailing-lists.zsh-workers@rawuncut.elitemail.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Keir Mierle wrote:
> 
> > > > On 7/10/05, Mike Hernandez <sequethin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > > On 7/10/05, Keir Mierle <mierle@gmail.com> 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.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

> > > > > 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.

Sure it does. Bash ships by default with most unix/linux installs.
That's enough momentum to stop most people from switching. Look at the
trouble Mozilla has had denting IE's marketshare with firefox; the
pre-installed advantage is enormous. Firefox is way better, by
default, and it's still having trouble!

> > > 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,

Of course it won't happen over night. Which is why we should start
sooner, rather than later. I started a page with a bit more detail on
the ZSH wiki.

http://zshwiki.org/NiceZshDefaults

Thanks,
Keir