@Seth yeah, but that in itself was weird... maybe there was something about the less ancient versions of Bash they found so objectionable that instead of upgrading they finally moved to a different shell altogether

@Zanna Huh, I didn't think of that. A good question.

Why did they switch?

that's what I'm wondering

VTC Spam! askubuntu.com/questions/1288180/…

@Zanna @Seth It looks like an issue with Bash's GPL licence: thenextweb.com/dd/2019/06/04/…

@BeastOfCaerbannog good find! Could have guessed. I definitely don't associate Apple with software freedom haha

@Zanna Yup. Totally unintuitive!

@Zanna Nor should you: the reason they moved to zsh is precisely because bash required them to offer more software freedom since the GPL is restrictive.

@terdon yeah that was my interpretation... something like "we have switched to Zsh as upgrading Bash would have required us to give you waaaay more freedom than we're comfortable with here at Apple, where we make the stuff, and you use it the way we damn well tell you to use it or else"

heh, sounds about right

That takes care of macOS, but what's the explanation for Kali Linux also switching to Zsh?

I guess the article that Kulfy linked to gives an adequate explanation

> Q.) Why did you make the switch? What’s wrong with bash? A.) You can do a lot of advanced things with bash, and customize it to do even more, but ZSH allows you to do even more. This was one really large selling point.

fair enough

Well, the zsh folks love lording it over us bash plebes, so it seems like a natural progression for macOS fans :P

hahahaha

@katyasehgal Thanks for asking the question. I'm a newbie in regards to Ubuntu. I hope that the community will help you :-)

@BeastOfCaerbannog Thanks!