Bash vs. Fish? I've tried both Linux shells, and one makes using the command line much easier

Jack Wallen/ZDNET Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google. The Linux shell enables communication with the kernel. There's a much more user-friendly option, called Fish.

Essentially, the Linux shell interprets commands so the kernel can understand and use them. Without the shell, not only would commands not work, but applications wouldn't work. Most Linux distributions default to the Bash shell, which stands for Bourne Again Shell. Because Bourne shell was the first shell, and Bash is an improvement on that. With Bash, you can write bash scripts that can do just about anything. However, Bash has been around for a very long time, and it really hasn't changed much. Also: I joyfully reunited with my first Linux distro at the Virtual OS Museum The good news is that there are alternatives, and one of those alternatives adds features that Bash has neglected. That shell is called Fish (Friendly Interactive SHell). The big difference between Bash and Fish is that Bash feels like it works for you, and Fish feels like it works with you. That might not make sense at first, but let me explain. When you run a command in Bash, you type it, hit Enter, and wait to see if it worked. Bash doesn't help you; it just accepts the command and attempts to run it.

Key points

• Essentially, the Linux shell interprets commands so the kernel can understand and use them.
• Without the shell, not only would commands not work, but applications wouldn't work.
• Most Linux distributions default to the Bash shell, which stands for Bourne Again Shell.
• Because Bourne shell was the first shell, and Bash is an improvement on that.
• With Bash, you can write bash scripts that can do just about anything.