Beat me to it. A lot of the value in choosing a specific shell lies in its popularity, so I think you really need to have a specific reason to choose something outside of bash/zsh/fish.

▲ vvpan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I recommended fish to some my younger coworkers recently only for somebody very senior to point out that they will be very confused copy-pasting commands meant for bash from the internet and them not working. He is right, I will hold off recommending fish. You have to know you are very ready for a new shell.

▲ kstrauser 3 hours ago | parent [-]

About the only common case for single line commands is that fish uses (cmd) instead of $(cmd) for subshells. Anything longer than that you should probably be pasting it into a file and executing that.

	▲	kstrauser 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Replying to myself: I don’t get the downvotes here. One-liner Bash commands I stumble across almost always work as-is in Fish. A while back they added support for `FOO=bar cmd` to run cmd with the env var FOO set to bar, and that was the single biggest incompatibility I routinely stumbled across. Most commands you find in random docs tend to be that simple, and most work just as if you’d run them under Bash. But if it’s a large, complex command with if statements and for loops, etc., you’re better off pasting it into a file, then tweaking it to run under Fish or just running it directly via Bash.

▲ eindiran 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you really need to have a specific reason to choose something outside of bash/zsh/fish

The reason in question is that not that long ago, people said "you really need to have a specific reason to choose something outside of bash", and people choosing to go off the beaten path lead to zsh and fish becoming powerful and way more popular/well-supported than they were before.

	▲	jayknight 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Being adventurous can be part of your reason.

▲ RestartKernel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel like there's a pretty big difference between recommending Zsh and a shell without compatible syntax. The latter assumes you'll spend so much time running ad hoc complex commands in your shell, without opting for a proper scripting language instead, that you'll offset the pains of translating any existing commands to the new shell syntax.

Fish is great. NuShell is amazing. But once I start doing such data pipelining, I'd much rather open a Jupyter notebook.

▲ nextaccountic 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that osh is valuable precisely because of that, since it's bash compatible. The project also has ysh which is not bash compatible, but fixes a lot of shell brokeness, including the #1 source of shell bugs, the need to quote almost 99% of variables and subshell invocations (and not quote them in the rare case you actually want splatting)

https://oils.pub/osh.html

https://oils.pub/ysh.html

▲ nerdponx 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know if this applies to RedoxOS users.

As for why you might use it on Linux, it seems like it's meant to be "friendly" like Fish, but with more emphasis on scripting rather than on interactive use. It looks like a very comfortable scripting language. Something that visually resembles Lua but also has all of the familiar shell constructs would be an excellent scripting language IMO. And that's what this seems to be.