Dissed Bash boshed: Apple makes fancy zsh default in forthcoming macOS 'Catalina' 10.15

For the past decade, Apple has avoided updating the Bourne Again SHell, better known as bash, for its desktop operating system due to the iGiant's distaste for the GPLv3 license attached to the command interpreter. Now, the fondleslab slinger has finally made the fancier Z shell, zsh, the default login and interactive shell in …

[Michael Hoffmann]

Anecdotal datapoint...

I recently had made the switch on my work-assigned Macbook and am in the process of switching all my Linuxesses' logins over.

Quite pleased, especially once you throw in oh-my-zsh and other little helpers.

That said, shell scripts that I need to throw around and run on other systems will likely stay bash for quite a while (though I no longer go so far as to avoid bash-isms and remain pure Bourne - it's not like I suddenly have to expect someone to throw a Solaris or HP/UX box at me).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

You can pry (m)ksh from my cold, dead hands!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

There isn't a *nix made in the last 30 years I am not comfortable in with

$ ksh

$ set -o vi

$ stty erase ^h

$ stty columns 200

[GrumpenKraut]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

$ set -o vi

You are a very naughty boy!

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

$ set -o vi

You are a very naughty boy!

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

[brotherelf]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

Yup. Funnily enough, I switched to zsh about fifteen or so years ago for the per-directory command history. Guess what I haven't used in the past fifteen years…

[stiine]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

If you run xterm, you don't have to set that last one...

One glitch on Win7 with Cygwin is that it sometimes doesn't set the length properly so you have to click restore and then click maximize to get it working.. A small, small price to pay to avoid having to use CMD.EXE or Powerhell

On another note, I've been using Linux(CentOS, Ubuntu), freeBSD, Solaris, SunOS, AT&T System V, AT&T system 3, BOS, and AIX since 1990 and I still don't know all of the commands in vi but I'll never use Emacs.

[jake]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

If you want to learn some of the more esoteric vi stuff, try using it as your shell. After the obvious learning curve, you'll be awfully surprised at how functional it is. For test purposes, create a user account with vi as your command interpreter. Pull up an xterm & log into that account. See what you can (and cannot) do with vi as your day-to-day CLI. The concept was suggested to me in jest decades ago (1979ish) when a friend commented that "You seem to live in vi! When was the last time you saw a shell prompt?"

These days, most of my *nix boxen have a user-name "write" set up as above. Most of the machines also have a so-called "dumb" terminal + Model M keybr0ad attached to a serial port (or via USB). When I'm writing (code, documentation, contracts, dead-tree letters), I don't like distractions.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

As a glutton for punishment I like emacs as my command shell

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

Don't run xterm generally. Tend to use Putty and HP-UX doesn't play as nice with columns.

[jake]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

Like it or not, "xterm" has become a generic, like xerox or kleenex.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

but I'll never use Emacs

As is entirely right and proper. No-one who is anyone[1] uses emacs!

[1] ..that I'd like to associate with..

[jake]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

As a long term vi (ab)user, I'm here to tell you that you are flat wrong. EMACS has it's place, I use it three or four times per month because it makes life easier for a few odds & ends. It's just another tool in the old toolbox. A good mechanic has a decent collection of tools, and knows when a hammer is more appropriate than an adjustable wrench ... and when this thing is right for the job.

[hmv]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

"throw a Solaris or HP/UX box at me"

Now you know that's just tempting fate.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Anecdotal datapoint...

not like I suddenly have to expect someone to throw a Solaris

Just as well - most of them were built out of cast-iron angle brackets and pure solidium.

Very much not lightweight throwaway. Much though those of us that used to herd them might have wished to..

[Anonymous Coward]

$ echo $0

-bash

$ uname

TinkertoyOS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Critics say ..."

"Companies tend to dislike GPLv3 because it prohibits GPLv3 software from being used on systems that prevent users from installing their own software (e.g. Apple TV) and because it includes patent clauses that limit potential infringement claims."

So what do you think and is that really a fair summation of the ramifications of GPLv3? Is it really an actual issue on Apple TV (for example)?

[gnasher729]

Re: "Critics say ..."

Is it an issue? Don’t know. If you were Apple, would you take the risk?

[thames]

Re: "Critics say ..."

Just what I was looking for, ways to make it easier for Apple to sue me.

[DuncanLarge]

Re: "Critics say ..."

If its an issue on Apple TV, then I have to say I dont really care about Apple TV. I might use one if I consider it an appliance but I wont shed a tear should Apple start crying that the GPL is hindering it in any way.

I've been a Free Software user/small time developer since I was about 16. If its not compatible with at least GPLv2 I want to see it rot, unless it happens to be something retro and fun to play with from my childhood in which case I just get on and have fun.

GPLv3 is certainly more heavy handed than 2 but I see why and for the most part agree with it, certainly around patents. I will say that v2 is more elegant in its simplicity but without the extra muscle of v3 I think v2 is pretty vulnerable if someone was to really go at it.

As for the MIT licenses (the updated ones), I have no issue with them other than its a bit weird to provide someone the freedom to take away someone else's freedom, which is why Apple are using it. GPLv3 threatens to set their users free. Looks like a dictatorship really. You can use the software with the freedom in the MIT license unless we suddenly say otherwise and when that happens bend over and take your medicine.

I'm sure that's unlikely to happen but as with driving I'm sure its unlikely I will get run over but I still support speed limits on the roads. Total freedom without checks and balances can be dangerous.

[tjbutt]

The shell wars.

Of the other shells referenced, nearly all predate bash.

It's nearly always been a matter of taste, plus where you fell 8n the csh/bsh divide that is 30 years old now.

I really like bash, for its predictable and widely used syntax, but also for features command line editing.

Never liked zsh, but that was a while ago.

I can understand and sympathise with Apple's motivation, though.

[Hans 1]

Re: The shell wars.

csh is evil, tcsh is much better, however, only to be used as an interactive shell. [t]csh shell scripts should be banned, SAP, I am looking at YOU!

[jake]

Re: The shell wars.

csh isn't evil. Nor is it useless, nor should it be banned. It's just another shell.

Would you say that an electric hand drill is evil and useless and should be banned because you have a Shopsmith?

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: The shell wars.

csh was my first shell-of-choice; then it was tcsh, which I merrily built on all the UNIX flavors I used, for several years.

But while I don't know if I'd call csh "evil", I did become disenchanted with t?csh's misfeatures and infelicities. I started using ksh variants on most of my systems, and gradually moved to a mix of ksh and bash - the latter on machines I administered, and the former on various shared systems where I was too lazy to bother running chsh and setting up a bash-friendly .profile and .bashrc.

I've found ksh and bash are generally more consistent, sensible, and feature-rich than csh and tcsh.

I played around a bit with various other shells (zsh, scsh, probably others that I've forgotten); I even spent a few days on my Solaris box using dbx as the shell in a couple of xterms, just to see what it would be like. (Solaris dbx is ksh-complete.) bash seems to be one of my local minima, though, and nothing's annealed me out of it yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

ah google dns

.. the go-to ip to do a network connectivity ping test.

[stiine]

Re: ah google dns

Only every time you do something in Chrome... no matter what your system DNS settings are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ah google dns

You could use 1.1.1.1 as well, also more private :)

Not that that matters much here re. privacy, but it's all about nurturing good habits :)

[thames]

The problem with using anything other than bash is that nearly everyone will assume that you are using bash. If you get a third party script that does anything complex, it will often assume you are using bash. If you do an on-line search for examples of shell scripting, the author will often have checked that it worked in bash and didn't check if it worked anywhere else. If you ever do any work with a server (and if you don't, you probably aren't doing any shell scripting anyway), it will probably have bash.

Bash has become to ubiquitous as to be nearly synonymous with "unix-style shell" and that isn't likely to change anytime in the foreseeable future. Apple are just further isolating themselves with this move, but then vendor lock-in has been their business strategy for some time now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't spent much on time on commercial UNIX huh? Bash is only ubiquitous on Linux and somewhat on the BSDs.

[joeldillon]

Linux has become so ubiquitous as to be nearly synonymous with "unix-style OS", though, and I say that as someone who was maintaining AIX/HPUX/Solaris boxes up to a couple of years ago. Even then it's pretty common to have some variety of bash installed somewhere on the box.

(Also, Solaris is the most ubiquitous commercial Unix and its default interactive shell is bash in version 11)

[ibmalone]

Don't assume /bin/sh is /bin/bash though, even on Linux. Scripts written as if /bin/sh is bash will break on Ubuntu where dash provides POSIX (but bash is the login shell).

I guess this change might hurt Mac users trying to run real bash scripts if bash itself is no longer available (and does sound like they'll be aiming to drop it).

Never got into zsh, I like it in theory, but my philosophy is generally once you find a situation needs the more advanced features in bash you need to switch to a more programming / less interactive language. (And context sensitive completion is great unless you mainly use commands it's not defined for. Actually, this has reminded me to get round to checking how to disable it in later bash...)

[GrumpenKraut]

> Never got into zsh, ...

Here are two things (among many) why I like zsh:

Intelligent completion, as in "make [tab]" completes the makefile targets, nice. Also completions are _below_ the current line and disappear when the command is issued, no more cluttering your terminal.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Intelligent completion, as in "make [tab]" completes the makefile targets

Which you can also do in bash using the bash-helper installs - they provide auto-completion for a lot of commands.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many shops run a Solaris version less than 11? Most I would say or at least a great many. Most commercial UNIX especially before about 5 years ago didn't come with with bash in the default install. Its the reason why I ended up learning ksh in the first place.

[Michael Wojcik]

Solaris is the most ubiquitous commercial Unix

Citation? I spent a minute or so on research and I found a lot of conflicting claims with little to back any of them up.

[jake]

What's your point?

It doesn't matter what Apple thinks/says/does. If you have the need, simply install bash (or any other shell that floats your boat) and be done with it. The interpreter directive exists for a reason. It doesn't matter what shell the system defaults to, never has, never will.

[stiine]

Actually, the commercial scripts I've used were always written to run in sh because while its less feature-rich (depends on your point of view), it tends to be available on every *nix/bsd type of system across the board.

[Santa from Exeter]

@thames

Any decent shell script ever written starts with a #!

If it starts #!/bin/bash as long as bash is on the system it will run fine, if bash isn't on the system it will error immediately.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem is people assuming bash, or writing specifically for bash when there's no damn reason.

Ever heard of POSIX?

Sigh.... I remember the days when linux people used to moan about software for windows... "everything should be portable and cross-platform!" they'd shout.

That soon changed as Linux gained more clout: "it's the linux way or nothing"

[Hans 1]

"it's the GNU way or nothing"

TFTFY

Don't POSIX_ME_HARDER!

[jake]

"I remember the days when linux people used to moan about software for windows... "everything should be portable and cross-platform!" they'd shout."

That would be the GNU people and the FSF, not the Linux people (whoever they are).

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes, I'm talking of those who used the Linux Kernel, and the GNU userland coupled together to make an operating system.

So, yes, not the "Linux people", or indeed the "GNU/FSF" people, but the "Linux/GNU users"[1]

Thanks for clarifying what everybody knew!

[1] By "users", I mean people who use the operating system in their daily lives, not someone who is addicted to it like a drug, or indeed, someone who is solely taking advantage of it in an immoral[2] way.

[2] Immoral as in "unethical" or "unfair", I wasn't implying any sort of sexual promiscuity.

I hope this post is suitably unambiguous for your pedantry!

[DuncanLarge]

>Bash has become to ubiquitous as to be nearly synonymous with "unix-style shell"

I can agree with this but anyone writing a script that needs to run on other systems MUST write it as POSIX compliant unless they specifically need the bashisms (many make things easier).

[man_iii]

Bashing GPL with benefits

Apple tends to be a corporate entity with profits its sole motivator. Tech moves forward through the wetware of human beans. This is why open source GPL freeware is important.... what was once a hobby tinker doodad gets shared via the human touch for the better or worse lessons learnt along the way.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Bashing GPL with benefits

I'm not going to bang Apple's drum but it does contribute meaningfully to several open source projects, such as WebKit and CUPS. The same could be said of behemoths such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft but the difference being that they're "cloud" services depend even more heavily on open source while not making all their proprietary changes available. It's the services that are now considered as the real risk to commercially based open source, ie. other companies trying to make a business with open source software.

The GPL, especially v3, doesn't really help because it just makes companies avoid it where possible because of the fear of litigation.

[Len]

Re: Bashing GPL with benefits

Apple doesn't have a problem with Open Source, you can download the source of a large part of what they ship (including the kernel) from opensource.apple.com covered under a whole host of OS licenses, from Apache License, Apple Public Source License and MIT to Mozilla Public License, BSD and GPLv2.

It's specifically GPLv3 that they feel is not compatible with some of their licenses. It's a similar stance to what you can hear in the BSD community who feel that GPLv3 is too restrictive.

[DuncanLarge]

Re: Bashing GPL with benefits

> BSD community who feel that GPLv3 is too restrictive

Actually thats the GPL, any version that they consider as to restrictive. The BSD folks are so hands off that they want total freedom for all. Which means giving someone the freedom to take freedom away from others.

The GPL was designed to specifically counter that. You get freedom but you cant use it to hurt others. It is the same in many other walks of life. For exampe in the UK I'm generally free to do whatever I like when I like where I like but there are still restrictions on my freedom concerning some activities I'm not free to enjoy. I cant murder, rape, steal, stalk. I cant generally expect to be free to run around stark naked while brandishing a knife can I. I can walk around naked legally, unless the police get complaints about my behavior like brandishing a knife or harassing the public.

Car owners are generally free to drive them wherever and whenever they like but we know they are not free to do so when breaking the speed limit or whilst driving on the kerb or through someones garden.

The GPL is that common sense restriction on freedom to benefit those who are free. If I had a chance I'd execute my freedom under the MIT license to modify any program I could and re-license under the GPL to protect it.

[disgruntled yank]

Re: Bashing GPL with benefits

"Apple tends to be a corporate entity with profits its sole motivator."

Tends to be a corporate entity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bashing GPL with benefits

This is why open source GPL freeware is important

It is EXACTLY because of the importance of Open Source that I personally dislike GPL v3. I get that some people would like to push their own agenda, but they engage in their own form of dictatorship as a result (start your downvotes now).

What value does it deliver if you stop a company from blending both? I have no problem with a company doing something innovative and profiting from it, provided I can afford it and it delivers a an ROI for the costs. It is my own responsibility to guard against costly lock ins (which is why our entire backbone uses Open Standards, mandated by the CEO, and that even includes the use of ODF), but GPL v3 acts as a sort of ebola for companies where they cannot combine Open Source code with their own as that now has to be opened too. I am as yet to be shown a benefit of that - all this does is push companies back into a full proprietary model.

I'm sorry if I don't fully buy into the socks-and-sandals "all code must be free" world that some people dream of, realistically some people have to earn a living and if there is one complaint I hear amongst all companies involved in fully Open code is that it's hard to make a living from it, typically that comes from support or service provision licenses, but let's be frank, most companies go that route because they can get away with not paying at all. We tend to get at least support contracts so we know the people can continue writing code, but we're rare in this.

Anyway, this may look less structured than my usual posts but I think it should be said. I believe in interoperability, of which Open Source and open standards are a great part but we must be careful what we do. There is a reason few people stay with pure Debian - there is value outside that domain too.

Besides, we also use FreeBSD :)

[SImon Hobson]

Re: Bashing GPL with benefits

...but GPL v3 acts as a sort of ebola for companies where they cannot combine Open Source code with their own as that now has to be opened too

Have an upvote from me as pretty well everything you said is correct - however, this bit isn't right.

Simplifying a bit ... AIUI, GPL v3 doesn't actually change this from v2. Earlier versions were much the same - if you incorporate GPL code into your product then you may have to also release your own code under GPL.

Also AIUI, if you dynamically link your code with GPL libraries then you do not have to open your own code. But if you incorporate GPL code into one binary with your own code then you do have to open it.

What GPLv3 does bring to the party is a new clause that invalidates your licence to use the code should you ever try to assert patent rights against the project. It is almost certainly the main motivation for avoiding it.

And the "Tivo clause" which was definitely overdue - but disliked by companies who want to control what you use a device for after you've bought it.

[DuncanLarge]

Re: Bashing GPL with benefits

> What value does it deliver if you stop a company from blending both?

Freedom, thats what.

> I have no problem with a company doing something innovative and profiting from it, provided I can > afford it and it delivers a an ROI for the costs.

So as long as the price is good you'd give up your freedom. Well, I hope you never get into Government.

I'd rather give up my freedom because it was right to do so, not because someone says it can make them more money. I accept that I cant rob banks when I'm short of change, that I must follow many rules on the road when driving a car. I accept this because these limits on my freedom are the correct thing to do and I'm not the kind of person who would exercise my freedom in that way anyway but I know some do, so they break the rules and get punished for it, while I watch on and shake my head in disapproval. This applies to societies use of computers and so giving up my freedom to enjoy harming the freedom of others is the right thing to do.

It would be great if you could trust everyone with power, be it wealth or simply having a fast car that is good at running people down, but we dont.

My ancestors here in the UK (before it was the UK) on 15th of June 1215 reigned in the power of kings and queens. They created the Magna Carta,

The GPL is like the digital version of the Magna Carta, reigning in the power that someone who codes has over others, whether coders or not. Its there to force you to be a decent person while bettering humanity, because some people need to be forced (well nudged, if you feel forced I'd think you'd go ahead and break the rules). Others see this as the rules and simply follow them. They personally wont ever do harm if they had the total freedom but they know that they don't want others to be able to do so.

Imagine a child going to school. (S)he thinks up an idea to make loads of money, perhaps confiscating all the other kids pencils, charging them each week to have access to them but guaranteeing that the pencils will have been sharpened and replaced when too short. Thus all the other kids get to have pencils that are always ready and never have to sharpen them (ok they will but you get the idea). The kid that thought this idea up is rolling in money and most other kids enjoy the "service". Then one kid brings in a set of free pencils and a heavy duty sharpener for all the kids. There are a couple of rules attached:

1. If you take a pencil please donate some money for the replenishment costs in the jar provided.

2. The sharpener is provided for all to use, without restriction. This is the only restriction.

Which of the kids would have an issue with that? Hint, only one.

So no. I wont use your software if it does anything to harm others rights. I dont care what it does for me. Maybe I will make an exception, but that would have to be a special case.

[karlkarl]

(EDIT: I am blind, I read ksh instead of zsh!!!. Oh well, I will leave this here anyway)

Is this the same ksh that is default in OpenBSD? In that case I approve. It works out of the box really well on smaller terminals :)

Apple got lucky this time. Imagine if the only available non-GPLv3 shells available to them were inferior. It would basically get to the point where you pay all this money to a proprietary vendor just to get the *second* best of everything haha!

(letting out a Stallman shaped chuckle)

[karlkarl]

(Edit: I made a heinous mistake. see above)

Unless they meant dtksh... I think the Motif widget bindings in that shell would look great within the Apple ecosystem! ;)

New and old, working together in perfect harmony. A hipsters dream!

[Steve Graham]

VAX

The shell I used first in my working career was DCL. I remember that I even bought a clone that ran on DOS. And a clone of EDT.

[Down not across]

Re: VAX

I used to have VCL from Boston Computing for PC, which IIRC had EDT as well. They even had *cough*All-In-1*cough* for PC.

There is a freeware <a href="http://users.skynet.be/michel.valentin/>PC-DCL</a> still floating around.

[sawatts]

"mostly compatible with bash"

Literally the worse sort of compatibility.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: "mostly compatible with bash"

Why is it literally so.

[sawatts]

Re: "mostly compatible with bash"

One of the hardest error cases to detect is where a dependency is switched out from under you for something which is "mostly compatible" - the remaining "not compatible" behaviour can bite in unexpected ways and (worse) result in non-fatal changes in behaviour.

[GrumpenKraut]

Re: "mostly compatible with bash"

> Literally the worse sort of compatibility.

Not in this case. Only if you insist on obscure (and frankly bad) features. An example: the splitting of variable through blanks is not default in zsh (thank god!), but you can have it by using ${=varname} instead of ${varname}.

zsh fanboi here ---->

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL 3 contains patent clauses that limit potential infringement claims?

“Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.”

[phuzz]

CUPS

I wonder how this is going to affect CUPS, what with Apple being the lead on that. I notice that they moved to an Apache license a couple of years ago.

[Pincushion Man]

Re: CUPS

Right, well, the direction is not so good. Mr Sweet is the main CUPS developer.

1) They are removing support for print drivers (PPD). If you driver doesn't support IPP2.0 & ZeroConf - you will have to work around it (see 3).

2) They are removing support for RAW print queues. Reason being same as above, IPP2.0 printers support logging features, and RAW queues enabled breaks that. Also, Mr Sweet says that it simplifies his code not having to support the corner case of RAW print queues. (see below).

3) If you need to use a RAW queue or a PPD driven printer, you'll have to code a driver that masquerades as an IPP2.0 printer to keep these devices working.

Source:

https://github.com/apple/cups/issues/5271

[Anonymous Coward]

So, wait ...

... the bash inits I've used & maintained for the last 20 years across all the systems I've used in that time are now going to have to be reinvented for zsh, which I'll only ever use on the mac? Er, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So, wait ...

Init scripts in bash? you're kidding, right?

[jake]

Re: So, wait ...

You can write init scripts in any language you like, unless you're running a toy OS distribution.

Most of my init scripts are Bourne shell for historic and compatibility[0] reasons ... but I have a few in other languages on various boxen, when it makes sense to use those languages. If the OP chooses to use bash for his/her installation specific startup scripting, who are we to question him?

[0] And to some degree inertia, if I'm being honest with myself. They work, I rarely need to reboot the machines in question, so why bother re-writing them in some other language? I mean, if YOU want to spend a couple hours (or days![1]) re-writing and testing a script that only takes a few CPU cycles to run once every calendar quarter or so, please do. I'm not stopping you ... unless I'm paying you, in which case stop slacking off and get back to work!

[1] Or, taking it to it's extreme, years or decades... I'm squinting at YOU, Poettering.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: So, wait ...

Hadn't you heard that Lennart is going to take your init scripts away from you and replace them with something much easier to break?

zsh has fans on all kinds of OS and for most people the change will be minor.

Where's the cheese icon?

[dl1]

I seem to remember using Wordperfect 5.1 as my main shell in DOS days.

My computer was mostly used to run kermit to connect to "The Database", but with a bit of typing too.

You could start off in WP, then open a "Shell" to run Kermit, then you could flip between the two without closing either. I think.