On 6 August 2012 00:21, David Benfell <benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That'd get my vote, but I'd be amazed if any distribution ever did > this. Doesn't zsh take more--a lot more--memory? David, I don't think in modern systems this could be of any real issue, choosing, for instance, sh over zsh because memory consumption is like deactivating unused ttys in /etc/inittab to save memory: nonsense. But in the case you happen to install Arch in a very resource-constrained machine you can always install Bash and then switch to it. I myself am a bash guy; while other fancy shells can add extra features I find bash sports everything I need for my daily console work. I really don't care about zsh shipped as default shell as long as zsh is full bash-compliance - but AFAIK zsh have some minor incompatibilities with bash that may prevent it from being the shell standard because the vast majority of scripts are crafted using Bash, a widespread de-facto standard for so long time. -- -msx
