I didn't like the idea. I prefer the alternative approach: _I_ decide the order of dirs in the PATH env. If I introduce an executable with a name, that overrides a system one - I probably do that intentionally.
If I introduce an alias (like `grep='grep --binary-files=without-match --ignore-case --color=auto`) that matches the name of a system binary - I probably do that intentionally.
And if I EVER need to call grep without my alias - I just prefix it with a backslash: \grep will search with case sensitivity and no color and will scan binaries.
Looked so backwards to me, too. However, I decided to give it a go, anyway. Now, I have some scripts and small commands which start with a comma, and it looks neat and time saving.
Yes, I can do path ordering to override usual commands. However, having a set of odd-job scripts which start with a comma gives a nice namespacing capability alongside a well narrowed-down tab-completion experience.
While it's not the neatest thing around, it works surprisingly well.
Another idea which looks useless until you start using is text expanders (i.e.: Espanso and TextExpander).
As a native speaker the original comment seemed completely fine, ignore them. Also, I never would never guessed that you weren't also a native English speaker.
Either adding your script directory in front of the PATH, or creating `alias` that provide a full path to your script where a conflict exists, makes a whole lot more sense to me.
I've never had this collision problem yet, despite appending my script directory to the end, but I'll use either of the above solutions if that ever becomes a problem.
One rarely actually needs to shadow binaries. Some cases could indeed be covered by introducing an alias that binds the binary's name to call a different copy of that binary.
You use shadowing to fix issues where you install some software that expects you to have a sane and ~recent version of some tool like git, but you don't as your system provides that binary and unfortunately it is either not sane (not GENERALLY sane [while it could be sane for system scripts]) or not recent enough. In that case the program's function would simply fail if it would call the system's binary and you shadow the binary with your version to fix that.
> adding your script directory in front of the PATH
That's a poor advice for the scripts you call relatively frequently. Instead, (as a general approach, we aren't discussing some particular script) don't use shadowing for scripts: just pick a non-conflicting script name and append the script's dir to $PATH.
When “I” means me then this usually works for me. But when “I” becomes “we”, sometimes this goes off the rails because someone introduces a bin with breaking changes that silently fucks up projects that dev doesn’t really know about, or forgot about.
I would recommend against overriding standard system binaries, you could break compatibility on your system with scripts that depend on those binaries. I just use an abbreviation like rg=“grep -RE”
I do this, and routinely shadow commands with my own wrappers to do things like set environment variables.
And then there’s Claude. It deletes whatever it finds at ~/.local/bin/claude, so I have to use a shell function instead to invoke the full path to my wrapper.
My goal is to prevent Claude from blowing up my computer by erasing things it shouldn't touch. So the philosophy of my sanboxing is "You get write access to $allowlist, and read access to everything except for $blocklist".
I'm not concerned about data exfiltration, as implementing it well in a dev tool is too difficult, so my rules are limited to blocking highly sensitive folders by name.
Random flags added to core tools are done with aliases, which do not affect the launched processes, not by shadowing them in ~/bin. Shadowing in ~/bin are for cases where a newer (compared to the system-wide version) or custom version of a tool is needed.
Not really, since if one usually does that - they probably understand the possible consequences and don't shadow whatever they like, but do it carefully.
On MacOS I shadow that way just curl and git binaries to the versions installed from homebrew and nothing has broken (yet). I know that tar on MacOS is also a weirdo that I'd rather shadow with the homebrew's gtar, but their args are different and I of course understand that there's a high probability of something in system to be bound to mac's version of tar, so here I better remember to use 'sane' tar as gtar or use an alias (instead of shadowing the binary) for tar to use gtar (because aliases are for users, not for system scripts/processes).
And on my home desktop's Debian - I don't even use shadowing of binaries at all (never needed it).
Also, I just realized: I change PATH env via my shell's rc script (~/.zshrc), so I probably could worry even less about shadowing system binaries (like tar on MacOS) possibly breaking things.
Just on your first suggestion, this also means that if a person or process can drop a file (unknown to you) into your ~/bin/ then they can wreak havoc. Eg they can override `sudo` to capture your password, or override `rm` to send your files somewhere interesting, and so on.
Btw on the second suggestion, I think there's a command named `command` that can help with that sort of thing, avoids recursive pitfalls.
That would require someone to already want to sabotage me in particular, learn my private workflows, and also have write access to my home folder. At that point, All is Lost.
Don't tell people to sacrifice agency for apocalypse insurance that doesn't work, lol
No, don't do that as a precaution. As others have already answered correctly - it's too late to worry about such things if a malicious agent has write access to your ${HOME} dir.
Seemed like it was more than that, but the comment is ambiguous. I took it to mean "show me all the commands which are shadowed" not "is this command shadowed"...
Others have already given valid answers: grep is not ripgrep [their params don't match], so it's a bad idea to alias 'grep' to use ripgrep. But it's okay to alias 'ripgrep' (or 'rg' or whatever) to use ripgrep with some args.
Tangentially related. Don't ever put "." in your PATH. I used to do this to avoid typing the "./" to execute something in my current directory. BAD IDEA. It can turn a typo into a fork bomb. I took down a production server trying to save typing two characters.
Why would this own a server? ls lists itself, but listing itself shouldn't cause it to run again? Where's the infinite loop that brings the server down?
I like to follow my own convention where I name files with shell scripts with an extension: .sh for POSIX-compatible scripts, .bash for scripts with bashisms or .zsh for scripts with zshisms.
If I ever wanted to achieve what you initially wanted to achieve - I could use something like
alias -s sh=sh
alias -s bash=bash
alias -s zsh=zsh
Just like I do bind .txt and .conf to 'less', .pdf to 'qpdf', .json to 'ijq', video formats to 'mpv' and so on.
Somebody mentioned it elsewhere, but it is a security risk: if you end up in a directory that's not under your control, and you do a "ls", it might execute "./ls" instead of /usr/bin/ls, and that can be doing anything, including piping your ~/.ssh/id_* to a remote server.
This can also happen by downloading something off the internet (git clone, or tar xz foo.tar.gz), or on a multi-user system (eg. someone can put any of these common commands into /tmp/ and wait for you to drop into it and try a "ls" there) — if you have any untrusted content anywhere, you are exposed.
> if you end up in a directory that's not under your control, and you do a "ls", it might execute "./ls" instead of /usr/bin/ls,
Not if if you APPEND the dot path to the PATH env: the system traverses the dirs specified in the PATH env from left to right and stops at first match. Your system's ls binary is in the dir that's to the left of your '.' dir.
A trip down the recursion hole. Also, scripts will inherit the relative path so they will have different absolute paths from each other. Seems easier to just type ./ so it's kinda funny in a "UNIX haters handbook" kind of way, but it's not even a fault in linux's command interface in that case. We've all been there.
Oh, that's without even going into the security risks and loss of portability.
Presumably a script that aliases a common thing or something and then it uses the same. E.g. someone adds ./sed that has some default params and calls sed. You’re intended to call it with ~/not-in-path/defaulted/sed and it is supposed to then call sed but instead calls itself if it’s earlier in the path hierarchy.
Might even be as simple as “detect if I’m running gnu sed or bsd sed and use the appropriate one”. Obviously you can not have this problem by being smart about other things but defense in depth right?
Not if if you APPEND the dot path to the PATH env: the system traverses the dirs specified in the PATH env from left to right and stops at first match. Your system's sed binary is in the dir that's to the left of your '.' dir.
Glad it worked for OP, but I've never once in 30+ years of this had a conflict that did something I didn't want. ~/bin/ is early in my PATH, and for a good reason. Things I put in there I want to take precedence, so I use this to purposely override provided bins. (Though I can only think of one time I wanted to do that, too.)
Kinda makes no sense to me: so you don't use '--' as a prefix, you use it in the middle of an alias, so you first have to autocomplete, say, 'gi' not to 'git' but to 'git--progress'. What does that alias do? Doesn't it call git with some args? If so - why not just alias it to git?
Prefixing commands solves the namespace problem and discoverability (at least partly). I use a slightly more sophisticated method, which helps me remember which custom utilities are available and how to use them: sd [1], a light wrapper written for zsh that, in addition to namespaces, provides autocompletion, custom help texts + some other QoL enhancements. Can definitely recommend if you're looking for something a bit more fancy.
Worth pointing out that with Nix/NixOS this problem doesn't exist.
The problem in other distros is that if you prefix PATH so that it contains your executable "foo", and then run a program that invokes "foo" from PATH and expects it to do something else, the program breaks.
With Nix, this problem does not exist because all installed programs invoke all other programs not via PATH but via full absolute paths starting with /nix/store/HASH...
NixOS simultaneously smooths the path to using absolute paths while putting some (admittedly minor) speed-bumps in the way when avoiding them. If you package something up that uses relative paths it will probably break for someone else relatively quickly.
What that means is that you end up with a system in which absolute paths are used almost everywhere.
This is why the killer feature of NixOS isn't that you can configure things from a central place; RedHat had a tool to do that at least 25 years ago; it's that since most of /etc/ is read-only, you must configure everything from a central place, which has two important effects:
1. The tool for configuring things in a central place can be much simplified since it doesn't have to worry about people changing things out from under it
2. Any time someone runs into something that is painful with the tool for configuring things in a central place, they have to improve the tool (or abandon NixOS).
If it's a one off, you just use something like "nix shell" to add it to your path for running the script.
For non one-off sorts of things, you would substitute in the nix expression "${gnugrep}/bin/grep" the "${gnugrep}" will expand to "/nix/store/grep-hash" and also make a dependency on the gnugrep package, so that the grep install won't get garbage-collected as long as your package is still around.
Here's an example[1] from a package expression for e-mail client I use, which will shell out to base64 and file. Upstream relies on these two programs being in $PATH, but this replaces the string used for shelling out with the absolute path in the nix store.
For shell scripts, I'll just do something like this near the top:
GREP="${GNU_GREP:-$(command -v grep)}"
Then I use "$GREP" in the script itself, and develop with grep in my path, but it's trivial to prepend all of my dependencies when I bundle it up for nix.
[user@nixos:~]$ which grep
/run/current-system/sw/bin/grep
[user@nixos:~]$ ls -l /run/current-system/sw/bin/grep
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 65 Jan 1 1970 /run/current-system/sw/bin/grep -> /nix/store/737jwbhw8ji13x9s88z3wpp8pxaqla92-gnugrep-3.12/bin/grep
Basically, it is still in your environment, so I don't see how he can claim that this problem doesn't exist in Nix, unless you use flakes like a proper Nix afficionado.
Yes, the original comment that this problem doesn't exist in Nix is wrong for a typical user environment.
It does contain the issue a bit though:
I'm running isync in a systemd service, yet the program "mbsync" is not in my path. I have several services installed, yet their programs aren't in my path. My e-mail client shells out to "file" for mime-type verification, yet "file" is not in my path.
Run "compgen -c |wc -l" to get a list of commands; its over 7000 on my Ubuntu system and right around 2000 on my NixOS system.
As an aside, the packages that put the most executables in my path are probably going to be in the path for most NixOS installs (231 just for coreutils+util-linux):
True enough, but in my experience it's not really much of a problem because if I'm not doing Nix, then I'm doing containers which are widely available.
What can be a problem is muscle memory, when you expect it to autocomplete one way and it doesn't because something you want now shares first two or three letters with something else in your path. That's where FIGNORE comes in.
There’s this program on nix that lets you type a comma, then any application name that exists anywhere in the Nix repos. It then downloads that app and runs it once, without “installing” it. Sometimes I find myself running something dozens of times this way before I realize it should probably be in my config.
I'm not sure I'll ever understand why they replaced their working ~50 line shell script with a Rust program that just shells out to the same nix-* commands. I appreciate that there are some safety benefits, but that program is just not complex enough to benefit.
Using commas in filenames feels kind of weird to me, but I do use a comma as the initiator for my Bash key sequences.
For example:
,, expands to $
,h expands to --help
,v expands to --version
,s prefixes sudo
You put keyseqs in ~/.inputc, set a keyseq-timeout, and it just works.
Global aliases are a zsh feature and not avaliable in bash. So if you want:
openssl ,v
to expand to...
openssl --version
readline seems like the way to go.
Then again most of the examples OP gave are usually available as short options, and aliasing ,s to sudo is certainly possible. So the only one which makes sense to me is ,,=$. But it's probably not worth the trouble to my muscle memory.
It's not a completely non special character: for instance in bash it's special inside braces in the syntax where "/{,usr/}bin" expands to "/bin /usr/bin". But the need to start that syntax with the open brace will remind you about the need to escape a literal comma there if you ever want one.
Oh, that might be true, I do remember encountering some escaping issues when creating a more complex POSIX (or bash) script that involved lists and iterating through stuff.
I see Bash only uses commas in Brace expansions:
file{1,2,3}.txt
# file1.txt file2.txt file3.txt
I guess it would only be a problem if you want to expand
This is one of those ideas that is so simple and elegant that it makes you think “why did I never think of doing this?!”
Neat trick! I don’t think I’ll namespace everything this way, because there’s some aliases and commands I run so often that the comma would get annoying, but for other less frequently used helper scripts then this will be perfect!
I do something similar with build trees, naming them +build, +cross-arm etc.
This convention was suggested by the GNU Arch version control system years ago (maybe 20??), but it's really useful for the same tab completion reason and I have kept it for almost two decades, even when I switched to git.
But that's the killer feature for me! I always forget the little commands I've written over the years, whereas a leading comma will easily let me list them.
I have zero problems with the terseness of the k language, the names of the source files nor the source code they contain
I find brevity easier to work with. I wish all software was like that
I like the shell (ash not bash). I like assembly language
I have to "adjust" to verbosity, and sometimes I honestly can't, it's paralyzing to the brain, terseness feels more natural
Why not name scripts in natural language like an LLM prompt perhaps (I don't use LLMs so pardon the ignorance), with spaces and punctuation
Bash allows it
echo echo hello > "dear computer, please output the word \"hello\". thank you"
chmod +x "dear computer, please output the word \"hello\". thank you"
"dear computer, please output the word \"hello\". thank you"
That might make sense if I was using the scripts to communicate with a another person, or if I intended other persons besides me to use the scripts
But neither of those things is true. The scripts are for communicating with a computer and are intended to be used only by me
UNIX allows anyone to rename any file to whatever they want. The UNIX user is free to pursue their own preferences in naming, whatever those may be
This is utterly unhinged. I freaking love it. It reminds me of the old joke about prisoners and numbers for jokes (Stanislaw Lem has a similar concept in a book):
A prisoner, new to a particular cell block, was surprised to discover that his fellow inmates passed much of their day by calling out numbers, after which they would laugh heartily for a few moments. Every few minutes an inmate would call out a number and everyone would laugh, and then, after a few moments of silence, someone else would call out a number, and once again laughter. The inmate asked one of the other inmates whom he'd come to know to explain this strange behavior to him.
"It's simple", came the reply. "We know all of our jokes by heart, and there's really no reason to tell them at lenght. Instead, we simply call them out by number."
Though this was strange to him, the new inmate thought he'd join in on the fun. After a few weeks listening to the jokes, he took some initiative and called out "number 27!". But nobody laughed. This seemed very strange to him, since he'd heard others call out that same number, with everyone laughing afterwards. After waiting and waiting, with still no laughter, he finally asked: "why is it that when others call out that joke you laugh, and when I called it, nobody laughed?".
People tend to want some separation between what's theirs and what's others. Other programs/scripts quite often put something into ~/.local/bin, so it's not yours actually, it's theirs.
I personally use both, each for different purposes.
I snapshot my entire home directory every hour (using btrfs+snapper), but I exclude ~/.local/ from the snapshots. So I use ~/.local/bin/ for third-party binaries, since there's no reason to back those up; and ~/bin/ for scripts that I wrote myself, since I definitely want to back those up.
This is a pretty idiosyncratic use though, so I'd be surprised if many other people treated both directories this way.
I prefer ~/bin/ for my scripts, links to specific commands, etc.
~/.local/bin is tedious to write, when I want to see directory content and - most important - I treat whole ~/.local/ as managed automatically by other services and volatile.
Personally I use ~/opt//bin where ~/opt is a ‘one stop shop’ containing various things, including a symlink to ~/local and directories or symlinks for things that don't play well with others (e.g. cargo, go), and an ~/opt/prefer/bin that goes at the start of PATH containing symlinks to resolve naming conflicts.
(Anything that modifies standard behaviour is not in PATH, but instead a shell function present only in interactive shells, so as not to break scripts.)
Unix lore: Early unix had two-letter names for most common names to make them easy to type on crappy terminals, but no one* letter command names because the easier were reserved for personal use.
I thought was for mixin externally provided systems like Homebrew, local is for machine or org-level customizations, and ~ is for user-level customizations.
/opt showed up as a place for packaged software, where each package (directory) has its own bin/, lib/, man/, and so on, to keep it self-contained rather than installing its files in the main hierarchy. ~/opt is just a per-user equivalent, analogous to /usr/local vs ~/.local.
The advantage of /opt is that multi-file software stays together. The disadvantage is that PATHs get long.
Nice although I think the ASCII comma feels wrong as part of a filename even if for purely aesthetic reasons.
If we want to stay within (lowercase) alphabetic Latin characters I think prefixing with the least common letters or bigrams that start a word (x, q, y, z, j) is best.
`y' for instance only autocompletes to `yes' and `ypdomainname' on my path.
Choosing a unique bigram is actually quite easy and a fun exercise.
And we can always use uppercase Latin letters since commands very rarely use never mind start with those.
instead of using ~/bin I use ~/installed/bin, sometimes I need build a command from source then install it, which might have share/ man/ etc so I can avoid installing them under the home dir.
One could set an env var to their local bin dir which is otherwise not in the path, like L=/home/ahepp/.local/bin, and then do $L/mycommand. Doesn't meet the OP's requirement of no shift key.
Or prefix files in the local bin dir with a couple letters from your username, like /home/ahepp/.local/bin/ah-mycommand
As a non-native English speaker I just name them in my native language or using British English spelling.
I have a command named "decolour", which strips (most) ANSI escape codes. Clear as day what it does, almost nobody uses this spelling when naming commands that later land as part of a distribution.
Properly manage PATH for the context you're in and this is a non-issue. This is the solution used by most programming environments these days, you don't carry around the entire npm or PyPI ecosystem all the time, only when you activate it.
Then again, I don't really believe in performing complex operations manually and directly from a shell, so I don't really understand the use-case for having many small utilities in PATH to begin with.
I do this, and it's a huge quality of life improvement. No so much because of shadowing existing binaries, but for better command auto-complete. For example: I have a bunch of tmux utilities and all start with `,t` which is not a polluted command-name prefix compared to just `t`.
But I'm now facing the problem that LLM agents don't like this, and when I instruct them to run certain tools, they remove the leading comma. It's normally fixed with one extra sentence in the prompt, but still inconvenient.
This is one of those "obvious in hindsight" tricks. The comma prefix gives you a namespace that's guaranteed to never collide with system binaries, shell builtins, or anything from a package manager.
I do something similar with my personal scripts — prefix them with a short namespace. The real win isn't just avoiding collisions though, it's tab completion. Type the prefix and tab, and you immediately see all your custom stuff without wading through hundreds of system commands.
The 2009 date on this is wild. Some of these simple unix conventions age better than most frameworks.
I don’t think this is a terrible idea, though stylistically it bothers me. I suppose you could simply have a prefix command router that would essentially do the same thing. I also started using “task” recently and it’s been a game changer for my CLI life.
It is like make but designed specifically for the way non-C(++) users - people like me for example adding scripts like "make run" and "make build" to my node/python/PHP/etc repos - use it. It is great! I still don't use it literally just because make is already installed on any *nix system I encounter day to day.
Interesting, I have never compared make with task but I suppose there’s some overlap. My favorite feature is that it’s cross-platform. I do use it for performing complex builds (like chaining several environment setup and docker compose commands, etc.). Of course you could do this with shell scripts, but this adds a layer of abstraction.
In many contexts in which I am trying to deconflict namespaces, I use my initials. I hadn't thought about it in this particular context, though now that I do, it seems fortunate that I am ced rather than sed.
I think its a fairly good idea - but for myself, i had already mapped csh’s default history character (!) to a comma (,) for the same reason - no shift key to invoke.
I tried a variant or this idea so many years ago after I leaned git and rearranged some of my personal tools as subcommands (like git) of a single executable named "dude,"
can someone explain security consideration of placing scripts into $HOME?
Some time ago I moved all my scripts to /usr/local/bin, because I feel that this is better from security perspective.
There are no security implications, on the contrary.
It is objectively cleaner to keep your user scripts in your home, that way they are only in _your_ PATH, whereas putting them in /usr/[local/]bin implicitly adds them to every [service] user on the machine, which I can see creating obscure undesired effets.
Not even mentioning the potential issues with packages that could override your scripts at install, unexpected shadowing of service binaries, setuid security implications, etc.
I appreciate the idea, but the comma just looks horrible to me as part of a filename. I can imagine someone unfamiliar with the naming scheme to get confused.
I'd prefer to use underscore (when writing BASH scripts, I name all my local variables starting with underscore), but a simple two or three letter prefix would also work. I don't like the idea of a punctuation prefix as punctuation usually has a specific meaning somewhere and including it as the first character in a filename looks wrong. (e.g. Comma is typically used as a list separator and it's a bit of cognitive dissonance to see it not used in that context)
> I don't like the idea of a punctuation prefix as punctuation usually has a specific meaning somewhere and including it as the first character in a filename looks wrong.
On non-English keyboards (Serbian/Croatian/Slovenian, but as they are based on QWERTZ, I imagine German and possibly others too), both "+" and "-" might not require pressing Shift either, and are much better characters than comma.
Well dotfiles demonstrate that punctuation can have a special meaning in filenames.
I'm not convinced by "quicker to type" arguments as that's rarely the bottleneck, so I'm perfectly happy with using underscores in filenames and variables. I wouldn't use underscore as the beginning character of a filename unless it had a specific meaning to me (e.g. temporary files), so I'd be more inclined to use a two or three character prefix instead.
That’s a more meaningful prefix than “,” at the expense of a couple more key strokes. I consider that to still be a win in the book of tab completions.
I'd warn against creating files starting with "-" as that can lead to unexpected results with tools if you forget to use "--" to end options. Nothing wrong with using "my-" as a prefix though.
Nowadays, I tend to skip using a personal prefix and just try to name commands with a suitable verb in front (e.g. "backupMySQL") and ensure that there's no name collisions.
This was actually the same feeling I had when I tried to learn perl. I just had a visceral dislike for "my" as the keyword to declare a local variable.
I read this blog a few years ago, and implemented it soon after with a refresh of my rc files and shortcuts. Gamechanger - has helped me every single day since. It’s easy to remember, autocompletes easily, and adds a little flair of personalization.
If I introduce an alias (like `grep='grep --binary-files=without-match --ignore-case --color=auto`) that matches the name of a system binary - I probably do that intentionally.
And if I EVER need to call grep without my alias - I just prefix it with a backslash: \grep will search with case sensitivity and no color and will scan binaries.
Yes, I can do path ordering to override usual commands. However, having a set of odd-job scripts which start with a comma gives a nice namespacing capability alongside a well narrowed-down tab-completion experience.
While it's not the neatest thing around, it works surprisingly well.
Another idea which looks useless until you start using is text expanders (i.e.: Espanso and TextExpander).
Feel free to add the required ones while reading this comment.
Sorry for the inconvenience this might create.
I've never had this collision problem yet, despite appending my script directory to the end, but I'll use either of the above solutions if that ever becomes a problem.
You use shadowing to fix issues where you install some software that expects you to have a sane and ~recent version of some tool like git, but you don't as your system provides that binary and unfortunately it is either not sane (not GENERALLY sane [while it could be sane for system scripts]) or not recent enough. In that case the program's function would simply fail if it would call the system's binary and you shadow the binary with your version to fix that.
> adding your script directory in front of the PATH
That's a poor advice for the scripts you call relatively frequently. Instead, (as a general approach, we aren't discussing some particular script) don't use shadowing for scripts: just pick a non-conflicting script name and append the script's dir to $PATH.
Why? It protects you from someone else (cough updated packages introducing new commands cough) picking a name you already use.
Thanks, mathfailure - this genuinely improves my life!
Call it the Chesterton’s Fence of ‘which’.
And then there’s Claude. It deletes whatever it finds at ~/.local/bin/claude, so I have to use a shell function instead to invoke the full path to my wrapper.
My goal is to prevent Claude from blowing up my computer by erasing things it shouldn't touch. So the philosophy of my sanboxing is "You get write access to $allowlist, and read access to everything except for $blocklist".
I'm not concerned about data exfiltration, as implementing it well in a dev tool is too difficult, so my rules are limited to blocking highly sensitive folders by name.
Because I cannot imagine much 3rd party scripts working with random flags added to core tools
Random flags added to core tools are done with aliases, which do not affect the launched processes, not by shadowing them in ~/bin. Shadowing in ~/bin are for cases where a newer (compared to the system-wide version) or custom version of a tool is needed.
On MacOS I shadow that way just curl and git binaries to the versions installed from homebrew and nothing has broken (yet). I know that tar on MacOS is also a weirdo that I'd rather shadow with the homebrew's gtar, but their args are different and I of course understand that there's a high probability of something in system to be bound to mac's version of tar, so here I better remember to use 'sane' tar as gtar or use an alias (instead of shadowing the binary) for tar to use gtar (because aliases are for users, not for system scripts/processes).
And on my home desktop's Debian - I don't even use shadowing of binaries at all (never needed it).
Also, I just realized: I change PATH env via my shell's rc script (~/.zshrc), so I probably could worry even less about shadowing system binaries (like tar on MacOS) possibly breaking things.
Btw on the second suggestion, I think there's a command named `command` that can help with that sort of thing, avoids recursive pitfalls.
Don't tell people to sacrifice agency for apocalypse insurance that doesn't work, lol
... and breaks existing scripts that reference the system one, right?
If I ever wanted to achieve what you initially wanted to achieve - I could use something like
alias -s sh=sh
alias -s bash=bash
alias -s zsh=zsh
Just like I do bind .txt and .conf to 'less', .pdf to 'qpdf', .json to 'ijq', video formats to 'mpv' and so on.
This can also happen by downloading something off the internet (git clone, or tar xz foo.tar.gz), or on a multi-user system (eg. someone can put any of these common commands into /tmp/ and wait for you to drop into it and try a "ls" there) — if you have any untrusted content anywhere, you are exposed.
Not if if you APPEND the dot path to the PATH env: the system traverses the dirs specified in the PATH env from left to right and stops at first match. Your system's ls binary is in the dir that's to the left of your '.' dir.
Oh, that's without even going into the security risks and loss of portability.
Might even be as simple as “detect if I’m running gnu sed or bsd sed and use the appropriate one”. Obviously you can not have this problem by being smart about other things but defense in depth right?
Easy autocomplete, I know there won't be any collision, and which command is mine.
[1] https://github.com/ianthehenry/sd
The problem in other distros is that if you prefix PATH so that it contains your executable "foo", and then run a program that invokes "foo" from PATH and expects it to do something else, the program breaks.
With Nix, this problem does not exist because all installed programs invoke all other programs not via PATH but via full absolute paths starting with /nix/store/HASH...
NixOS simultaneously smooths the path to using absolute paths while putting some (admittedly minor) speed-bumps in the way when avoiding them. If you package something up that uses relative paths it will probably break for someone else relatively quickly.
What that means is that you end up with a system in which absolute paths are used almost everywhere.
This is why the killer feature of NixOS isn't that you can configure things from a central place; RedHat had a tool to do that at least 25 years ago; it's that since most of /etc/ is read-only, you must configure everything from a central place, which has two important effects:
1. The tool for configuring things in a central place can be much simplified since it doesn't have to worry about people changing things out from under it
2. Any time someone runs into something that is painful with the tool for configuring things in a central place, they have to improve the tool (or abandon NixOS).
/nix/store/grep-hash -flags files | /nix/store/head-hash
instead of: "grep -flags files | head"?
For non one-off sorts of things, you would substitute in the nix expression "${gnugrep}/bin/grep" the "${gnugrep}" will expand to "/nix/store/grep-hash" and also make a dependency on the gnugrep package, so that the grep install won't get garbage-collected as long as your package is still around.
Here's an example[1] from a package expression for e-mail client I use, which will shell out to base64 and file. Upstream relies on these two programs being in $PATH, but this replaces the string used for shelling out with the absolute path in the nix store.
For shell scripts, I'll just do something like this near the top:
Then I use "$GREP" in the script itself, and develop with grep in my path, but it's trivial to prepend all of my dependencies when I bundle it up for nix.1: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/by-name/no...
It does contain the issue a bit though:
I'm running isync in a systemd service, yet the program "mbsync" is not in my path. I have several services installed, yet their programs aren't in my path. My e-mail client shells out to "file" for mime-type verification, yet "file" is not in my path.
Run "compgen -c |wc -l" to get a list of commands; its over 7000 on my Ubuntu system and right around 2000 on my NixOS system.
As an aside, the packages that put the most executables in my path are probably going to be in the path for most NixOS installs (231 just for coreutils+util-linux):
What can be a problem is muscle memory, when you expect it to autocomplete one way and it doesn't because something you want now shares first two or three letters with something else in your path. That's where FIGNORE comes in.
It does seem to do some more complex stuff now that would've been annoying, but not impossible, to write as a shell script.
[1]: https://github.com/nix-community/comma/pull/19
You put keyseqs in ~/.inputc, set a keyseq-timeout, and it just works.
Then again most of the examples OP gave are usually available as short options, and aliasing ,s to sudo is certainly possible. So the only one which makes sense to me is ,,=$. But it's probably not worth the trouble to my muscle memory.
I see Bash only uses commas in Brace expansions:
file{1,2,3}.txt # file1.txt file2.txt file3.txt
I guess it would only be a problem if you want to expand
Neat trick! I don’t think I’ll namespace everything this way, because there’s some aliases and commands I run so often that the comma would get annoying, but for other less frequently used helper scripts then this will be perfect!
This convention was suggested by the GNU Arch version control system years ago (maybe 20??), but it's really useful for the same tab completion reason and I have kept it for almost two decades, even when I switched to git.
File names or directories starting with a comma where considered “junk”, and ones with a plus sign I think where considered “precious”.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40769362 (2024, 169 comments)
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31846902 (2022, 123 comments)
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22778988 (2020, 90 comments)
I started using a prefix because I like very short script names that are easy to type
I prefer giving scripts numbers instead of names
Something like "[number"
I use prefixes and suffixes to group related scripts together, e.g., scripts that run other scripts
I have an executable directory like ~/bin but it's not called bin. It contains 100s of short scripts
I find brevity easier to work with. I wish all software was like that
I like the shell (ash not bash). I like assembly language
I have to "adjust" to verbosity, and sometimes I honestly can't, it's paralyzing to the brain, terseness feels more natural
Why not name scripts in natural language like an LLM prompt perhaps (I don't use LLMs so pardon the ignorance), with spaces and punctuation
Bash allows it
That might make sense if I was using the scripts to communicate with a another person, or if I intended other persons besides me to use the scriptsBut neither of those things is true. The scripts are for communicating with a computer and are intended to be used only by me
UNIX allows anyone to rename any file to whatever they want. The UNIX user is free to pursue their own preferences in naming, whatever those may be
> Something like "[number"
> It contains 100s of short scripts
So you call scripts like [1 [2 [3 [4 ... and remember what each one of them does? If yes - that's nuts, I'd visit a doctor.
A prisoner, new to a particular cell block, was surprised to discover that his fellow inmates passed much of their day by calling out numbers, after which they would laugh heartily for a few moments. Every few minutes an inmate would call out a number and everyone would laugh, and then, after a few moments of silence, someone else would call out a number, and once again laughter. The inmate asked one of the other inmates whom he'd come to know to explain this strange behavior to him.
"It's simple", came the reply. "We know all of our jokes by heart, and there's really no reason to tell them at lenght. Instead, we simply call them out by number."
Though this was strange to him, the new inmate thought he'd join in on the fun. After a few weeks listening to the jokes, he took some initiative and called out "number 27!". But nobody laughed. This seemed very strange to him, since he'd heard others call out that same number, with everyone laughing afterwards. After waiting and waiting, with still no laughter, he finally asked: "why is it that when others call out that joke you laugh, and when I called it, nobody laughed?".
The reply promptly came: "You told it wrong".
I snapshot my entire home directory every hour (using btrfs+snapper), but I exclude ~/.local/ from the snapshots. So I use ~/.local/bin/ for third-party binaries, since there's no reason to back those up; and ~/bin/ for scripts that I wrote myself, since I definitely want to back those up.
This is a pretty idiosyncratic use though, so I'd be surprised if many other people treated both directories this way.
~/.local/bin is tedious to write, when I want to see directory content and - most important - I treat whole ~/.local/ as managed automatically by other services and volatile.
(Anything that modifies standard behaviour is not in PATH, but instead a shell function present only in interactive shells, so as not to break scripts.)
Unix lore: Early unix had two-letter names for most common names to make them easy to type on crappy terminals, but no one* letter command names because the easier were reserved for personal use.
I thought was for mixin externally provided systems like Homebrew, local is for machine or org-level customizations, and ~ is for user-level customizations.
The advantage of /opt is that multi-file software stays together. The disadvantage is that PATHs get long.
~/bin predates it.
And of course you can use both.
It kind of goes against the idea why dotfiles are dot-prefixed.
~/.local was only invented around 2003 and gained widespread usage maybe 15 years or so ago...
People used ~/bin already in the 90s ;-)
I create a home directory "x" for executables that I want to manage as files, and don't want on PATH or as alias.
To run foo: ~/x/foo
For example I have GNU date as ~/x/date so it's independent of the system BSD date.
they're both so easy to reach for
If we want to stay within (lowercase) alphabetic Latin characters I think prefixing with the least common letters or bigrams that start a word (x, q, y, z, j) is best.
`y' for instance only autocompletes to `yes' and `ypdomainname' on my path.
Choosing a unique bigram is actually quite easy and a fun exercise.
And we can always use uppercase Latin letters since commands very rarely use never mind start with those.
Or prefix files in the local bin dir with a couple letters from your username, like /home/ahepp/.local/bin/ah-mycommand
Also, kudos to keeping it so concise and to the point, thats some prime writing.
I have a command named "decolour", which strips (most) ANSI escape codes. Clear as day what it does, almost nobody uses this spelling when naming commands that later land as part of a distribution.
Then again, I don't really believe in performing complex operations manually and directly from a shell, so I don't really understand the use-case for having many small utilities in PATH to begin with.
On my most frequently used machine/dev env this means -
e for vim
m for mise
n for pnpm
c for Claude
x for codex
j for just
I use fish abbreviations for this, as they expand to the full command in the shell history.
But I'm now facing the problem that LLM agents don't like this, and when I instruct them to run certain tools, they remove the leading comma. It's normally fixed with one extra sentence in the prompt, but still inconvenient.
I do something similar with my personal scripts — prefix them with a short namespace. The real win isn't just avoiding collisions though, it's tab completion. Type the prefix and tab, and you immediately see all your custom stuff without wading through hundreds of system commands.
The 2009 date on this is wild. Some of these simple unix conventions age better than most frameworks.
I thought the title meant I should type ,ls instead of ls.
Like so?
quick, easy and consistent. entirely voluntary.
Bravo
However, I'd advocate for an ë key then.
Off-topic: What the hell is that font on this website? And why does the "a" look like that?
It went weird pretty quickly...
It is objectively cleaner to keep your user scripts in your home, that way they are only in _your_ PATH, whereas putting them in /usr/[local/]bin implicitly adds them to every [service] user on the machine, which I can see creating obscure undesired effets.
Not even mentioning the potential issues with packages that could override your scripts at install, unexpected shadowing of service binaries, setuid security implications, etc.
2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40769362
2022: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31846902
2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22778988
`.local/bin` seems to be much more common in my experience for this use case. And for good reason.
I'd prefer to use underscore (when writing BASH scripts, I name all my local variables starting with underscore), but a simple two or three letter prefix would also work. I don't like the idea of a punctuation prefix as punctuation usually has a specific meaning somewhere and including it as the first character in a filename looks wrong. (e.g. Comma is typically used as a list separator and it's a bit of cognitive dissonance to see it not used in that context)
> I don't like the idea of a punctuation prefix as punctuation usually has a specific meaning somewhere and including it as the first character in a filename looks wrong.
So you don’t use dotfiles? ;)
I'm not convinced by "quicker to type" arguments as that's rarely the bottleneck, so I'm perfectly happy with using underscores in filenames and variables. I wouldn't use underscore as the beginning character of a filename unless it had a specific meaning to me (e.g. temporary files), so I'd be more inclined to use a two or three character prefix instead.
I would replace underscore with “-“ or “.”
Nowadays, I tend to skip using a personal prefix and just try to name commands with a suitable verb in front (e.g. "backupMySQL") and ensure that there's no name collisions.