TRtronicdude·Apr 8, 2024
FWIW, I've used zshell for years now and had a great experience. When vetting it against the other zinit fork, it seemed better documented and more active (new features still being added) while the other fork was simply archival. The dev has been extremely responsive whenever I've had issues or questions.
This is all that is in my zshrc:
# Install Zi if not already installed
if [[ ! -f $HOME/.zi/bin/zi.zsh ]]; then
print -P "%F{33} %F{160}Installing (%F{33}z-shell/zi%F{160})…%f"
command mkdir -p "$HOME/.zi" && command chmod go-rwX "$HOME/.zi"
command git clone -q --depth=1 --branch "main" https://github.com/z-shell/zi "$HOME/.zi/bin" && \
print -P "%F{33} %F{34}Installation successful.%f%b" || \
print -P "%F{160} The clone has failed.%f%b"
fi
This seems like a bit of an overreaction to someone contributing
Read the rest
open source software. Every component of zshell is open (including the website) under the github organization. If they fucked up the checksum version of the download (didn't exist when I started using zshell), submit a PR maybe? As far as the accusation that they're trying to look like official Zsh: the description for the website and repo is literally "A Swiss Army Knife for Zsh - Unix Shell." You cannot miss it.
I don't have a dog in this but this is clearly an overreaction. ss-o has put a lot of time into this and made the best zsh plugin manager imo. Calling it "scammy looking" and "boo hoo he works in marketing" is a cheap blow.