Some devs(developers) out there are showing some biased interest in zsh. I definitely do not know enough about all the different shells in order to get into a shell skipping debate but I can feel the love-loss. I have a fresh Ubuntu 11.10 installation and in the /etc/shells file you’ll see:# /etc/shells: valid login shells/bin/csh/bin/sh/usr/bin/es/usr/bin/ksh/bin/ksh/usr/bin/rc/usr/bin/tcsh/bin/tcsh/usr/bin/esh/bin/dash/bin/bash/bin/rbash/usr/bin/screenI do not know why screen is in there but, ok, it is. Personally I have been using bash for as long as I can remember. I started with sh, csh and ksh but it depended on the unix I was using and what the default was. And since it was so far back people just left well enough alone. When I discovered bash it was strictly because of color, some autocompletion, but mostly command history.Now that zsh seems to be getting somewhat of a revival it’s not hard to take a look. And so I did. And I don’t like it at all. Part of the key success of ksh are tools like oh-my-ksh. oh-my-ksh uses ruby as a systems language to script the plugins and that, of course, gets wonky when you use rvm. the refcard that OMK provided is almost 10 pages of trifold. OMK is a simple set of tools and framework but when the authors take credit for 217 contributors I’m thinking chaos… and sometimes chaos is just that.There are certainly some take aways from the ksh one-up-ness that I would like to see in bash but not to the extent that ksh projects.