←back to thread

131 points tosh | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.668s | source
1. Tmpod ◴[] No.44364607[source]
I see it also supports fish. That's been my shell for many years, it just works really well and, as far as I can tell (couldn't find a demo on their website), it doesn't add much to fish beyond syncing?

Has anyone used fish + autuin? What are your thoughts? I'm curious to know if it is worth the extra tool, maybe I should just try it :)

replies(3): >>44364826 #>>44364893 #>>44365094 #
2. aquova ◴[] No.44364826[source]
I've been using fish + atuin for well over a year now. I personally love it. I'm not sure if zsh or bash with atuin offers some additional features that fish doesn't, but the shell syncing and fuzzy search is enough of a value that it made it completely worth setting up for me.
3. ellieh ◴[] No.44364893[source]
The main thing would be opt-in syncing, and I think we might store a little more context than fish does in their SQLite!

Otherwise consistency is nice if you use a few setups

replies(1): >>44366393 #
4. robertknight ◴[] No.44365094[source]
I use fish + atuin. I leave the "Up" arrow set to use fish's default history search (see https://docs.atuin.sh/faq/#how-do-i-remove-the-default-up-ar...), which keeps the UI minimal when just going back one or two commands, then use atuin via Ctrl+R when I need to find a command from earlier in my history. At that point Atuin provides a nicer UI for searching the history.
5. barosl ◴[] No.44366393[source]
fish doesn't use SQLite, but its own plaintext format. They've been trying to migrate to other formats.[1] Currently fish stores timestamps and directories in its history.

[1] https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/3341