• BatmanAoD@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You get admin privileges on MacOS like a big boy. You can use bash or zsh commands in Terminal all you want.

    Cool. So try updating to a version of Bash from the last 15 years, because the pre-installed one is Bash 3, because Bash 4 and 5 are under the GPLv3 license, which Apple won’t comply with.

    …ah, no, you can’t update the pre-installed Bash, because it’s on a section of the file system that is read-only even with admin access. You can install Bash 5 as a separate shell, and use that as your default terminal shell, but any scripts written with the standard #!/bin/bash instead of the more flexible #!/usr/bin/env bash will still use Bash 3.

    This “handholding” (or really, a safety net) is arguably a good thing, or at least a positive tradeoff; but you can’t claim it doesn’t exist.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I agree it’s not as limitless as Linux, but there’s plenty of room for advanced users.

      I’ve never needed to use a newer version of Bash. What is an example of something one couldn’t do with Bash 3 or zsh?

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        I get that this is an Apples to Oranges comparison, but Powershell 7 is way easier to use than the default Windows Powershell because of autocomplete. I imagine that newer versions of Bash have made improvements that are similarly powerful.

      • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not so much a problem of there being things you “can’t do” in other shells or older Bash, as that it breaks existing shell scripts, which is frustrating.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Ok, yeah, I can see that there would be times this could matter but like 90% of the time this wouldn’t have mattered for my use case afaik. I didn’t realize you couldn’t backup the old copy in /bin and symlink to the brew one from there. In fact I thought I did do that long ago.

      • computergeek125@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If it’s anything like when I used a Mac regularly 7y ago, Homebrew doesn’t install to /bin, it installs to /usr/local/bin, which only works for scripts that use env in their shell “marker” (if you don’t call it directly with the shell). You’re just putting a higher bash in the path, not truly updating the one that comes with the system.

        • paperplane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s mostly still true, with the small caveat that the default prefix on arm64 macOS is /opt/homebrew rather than /usr/local, so you might have to add it explicitly to your PATH

          • computergeek125@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oh thank goodness, that was one of my main complaints with the system. Did they ever get around to requiring sudo like Macports (and any other reasonable system level packages manager on BSD/Linux)?