333 pointsby theblazehen3 days ago38 comments
  • mathfailure4 hours ago
    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.

    • bayindirhan hour ago
      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).

      • mathfailure6 minutes ago
        I never knew that what I've known as 'hotstrings' (since the AutoHotKey days) other sometimes also call 'text expanders'.
      • xbryanx22 minutes ago
        Love Alfred Snippets for this same text expander need.
    • mid-kid3 hours ago
      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.

    • alance3 hours ago
      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.

      • functionmouse2 hours ago
        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

      • latexr2 hours ago
        If someone can drop a file in your ~/bin, they can also edit your shell’s startup files to add their malicious command.
      • wtetzneran hour ago
        I think it's already game over if they have access to your home directory. They can also edit your path at that point.
      • dieulotan hour ago
        The issue of rootless malicious command overrides is solved by typing the whole path, such as "/bin/sudo".
      • znpy2 hours ago
        While true, what you describe is very unlikely to happen and most definitely won’t happens on systems where i’m the only users.
    • CGamesPlay2 hours ago
      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.

      • e1g2 hours ago
        You can use an alias, which takes priority over $PATH. e.g. I have this in .zhsrc to override the "claude" executable to run it in the OS sandbox:

            alias claude="sandbox-exec -f ~/agents-jail.sb ~/.local/bin/claude --dangerously-skip-permissions"
        • plagiarist2 hours ago
          How does your sandbox ruleset look? I've been using containers on Linux but I don't have a solution for macOS.
    • 1122333 hours ago
      Any severe side effects so far? Have you set PATH up somehow so it is effect only on interactive prompt, and not in the launched processes?

      Because I cannot imagine much 3rd party scripts working with random flags added to core tools

      • deredede3 hours ago
        I also do this.

        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.

    • pmarreckan hour ago
      I do the same thing, but I also have a command that shows me what functions or scripts might be shadowing other scripts
      • e40an hour ago
        Care to share?
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • chrisjj3 hours ago
      > If I introduce an executable with a name, that overrides a system one

      ... and breaks existing scripts that reference the system one, right?

      • amszmidt3 hours ago
        Not if it is an alias.
        • hk__22 hours ago
          But yes if it’s another executable.
    • fragmede3 hours ago
      curious if you're customizing anyway, why not use eg ripgrep?
      • mathfailure8 minutes ago
        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.
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
      • wtetzneran hour ago
        repgrep's CLI options and general behavior are different from grep. I tend to use both for different things.
      • llimllib2 hours ago
        Not OP, but I use ripgrep and customize it with an alias as well, so it applies equally there
  • jkercher2 hours ago
    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.
    • Kiboneu38 minutes ago
      lol. What a beautiful footgun — for such a tiny optimization.
  • michaelcampbellan hour ago
    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.)
  • macintux38 minutes ago
    This has been a popular topic nearly every time the post makes the HN front page.

    * 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)

  • ljouhet4 hours ago
    Most of my aliases contain `--` for the same reason, `git--progress`, `grep--rIn`, `nvidia--kill`, `ollama--restart`, `rsync--cp`, `pdf--nup`...

    Easy autocomplete, I know there won't be any collision, and which command is mine.

  • alzee3 hours ago
    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.

    • pmarreckan hour ago
      would an alias just work in this use-case?
    • pmarreckan hour ago
      also. did you mean .inputrc ?
  • caeruleus4 hours ago
    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.

    [1] https://github.com/ianthehenry/sd

  • matheus-rr13 minutes ago
    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.

  • tomcam3 hours ago

        Every tool and shell that lay in arm's reach treated the comma as a perfectly normal and unobjectionable character in a filename.
    
    WTF. After 40 years maybe I should have figured that one out.
    • pm2153 hours ago
      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.
    • XCSme2 hours ago
      What about using the filename in arrays in bash/sh?
      • layer82 hours ago
        But Bash arrays don’t use comma, what’s the problem?
        • XCSmean hour ago
          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

              file,.txt   
              file,,.txt   
              file,,,.txt
          • XCSmean hour ago
            Imagine seeing this code:

                echo file{",",",,",",,,"}.txt
        • pmarreckan hour ago
          Have you met Bash? It’s a shrine to space-delimited everything lol
          • layer8an hour ago
            I reworded my comment for clarity now.
    • layer82 hours ago
      You never used CVS/RCS with its “,v” files?
    • mike-the-mikado2 hours ago
      Until someone forces you to use a file system that cannot tolerate commas...
      • layer82 hours ago
        Which file system would that be?
  • impoppy3 hours ago
    Why so many people use ~/bin/? What’s wrong with ~/.local/bin?
    • gucci-on-fleek31 minutes ago
      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.

    • 1313ed013 hours ago
      Random things are installed in ~/.local/bin. In ~/bin I have only what I put there.
    • kpsan hour ago
      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.

      • lupirean hour ago
        What's the difference between opt and local?

        I thought was for mixin externally provided systems like Homebrew, local is for machine or org-level customizations, and ~ is for user-level customizations.

        • kps19 minutes ago
          /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.

    • pmarreckan hour ago
      The latter is XDG.

      ~/bin predates it.

      And of course you can use both.

    • xorcistan hour ago
      Why would you want to store your binaries in a hidden directory?

      It kind of goes against the idea why dotfiles are dot-prefixed.

    • maleldilan hour ago
      I use ~/.local/bin for installed programs, and ~/bin for my own scripts.
    • dark-star3 hours ago
      ~/bin/ preceeds the XDG Base Directory Specification.

      ~/.local was only invented around 2003 and gained widespread usage maybe 15 years or so ago...

      People used ~/bin already in the 90s ;-)

    • zhouzhao3 hours ago
      Nothing. I also use `~/.local/bin/`
  • elhosots27 minutes ago
    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.
  • 1vuio0pswjnm74 hours ago
    I use a different prefix character, e.g. "[", but I have been doing this for years

    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

    • feelamee3 hours ago
      do you publish dotfiles and scripts anywhere? I'm interested to see them
  • sevg4 hours ago
    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!

    • bonzini3 hours ago
      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.

      • amszmidt3 hours ago
        It was suggested by Tom Lord (RIP), who used it heavily long before he wrote GNU Arch.

        File names or directories starting with a comma where considered “junk”, and ones with a plus sign I think where considered “precious”.

    • pjerem4 hours ago
      Maybe then try ending your commands with a comma so that you don’t break first-char autocomplete !
      • stavros4 hours ago
        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.
  • jph4 hours ago
    Clever hack! <3 I also do namespacing yet in a different way.

    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.

  • vitorsr3 hours ago
    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.

    • diydspan hour ago
      Its some what natural to german spkrs who use a special set of double quotes to start a quote in print.
  • mromanuk4 hours ago
    It’s clever, but is not aesthetic. A comma feels unnatural in the fs.
    • layer82 hours ago
      So did the dot in dotfiles originally. You’ll get used to it if you want to.
    • mystifyingpoi3 hours ago
      It doesn't have to be a literal file, it can be an alias.
      • lupire44 minutes ago
        That doesn't make it "feel" less "unnatural".
  • nickelpro2 hours ago
    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.

  • Dovean hour ago
    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.
  • falloutx4 hours ago
    Finally a post that is relevant to what I have been looking for quite some time.

    Also, kudos to keeping it so concise and to the point, thats some prime writing.

  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • Tade02 hours ago
    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.

  • temporallobe2 hours ago
    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.
    • mogoh2 hours ago
      What is task?
      • alex-moon2 hours ago
        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.
  • dcchuck2 hours ago
    I prefer all my custom commands as 1 letter.

    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

    • maleldilan hour ago
      r for uv run

      j for just

      I use fish abbreviations for this, as they expand to the full command in the shell history.

    • dddwan hour ago
      d for deploy to production
  • karolist4 hours ago
    Interesting, though I never had enough custom scripts to justify this, I prefer oh-my-zsh plugin style short aliases instead, i.e. https://github.com/ohmyzsh/ohmyzsh/tree/master/plugins/git
  • tezza3 hours ago
    This is a really good practical step if you worry about name collisions

    quick, easy and consistent. entirely voluntary.

    Bravo

  • dadandang4 hours ago
    ,Start all of your commands with a comma
    • zdc14 hours ago
      Should be titled Prefix your script names with a comma. Current title is a little clickbait-y through its ambiguity.
      • albert_e3 hours ago
        Agree.

        I thought the title meant I should type ,ls instead of ls.

    • JamesTRexx3 hours ago
      ,sudo make me a sammich

      Like so?

  • skerit3 hours ago
    I would have never thought of that. Funny that a comma can be used like that.

    Off-topic: What the hell is that font on this website? And why does the "a" look like that?

  • gugod4 hours ago
    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,"

    It went weird pretty quickly...

  • feelamee3 hours ago
    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.
    • Galanwe2 hours ago
      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.

    • layer8an hour ago
      Someone with access to your home dir can also set your $PATH and aliases to anything they want, so I don’t see any extra security considerations here.
  • ndsipa_pomu4 hours ago
    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)

    • layer8an hour ago
      Underscore requires pressing Shift, however.

      > 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? ;)

      • ndsipa_pomuan hour ago
        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.

        • layer843 minutes ago
          For me it’s not about quickness, but about strain. Like in RSI.
    • eterps4 hours ago
      I use my_ as a prefix.
      • ndsipa_pomu2 hours ago
        I used to use "do" as a prefix e.g. "doBackup"

        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.

      • JamesTRexx3 hours ago
        Whenever I see "my" as a prefix, it feels like such a childish "my first Sony" thing. I hate official sites using that.
  • laughing_snyder3 hours ago
    > Like many Unix users, I long ago created a ~/bin/ directory in my home directory

    `.local/bin` seems to be much more common in my experience for this use case. And for good reason.

    • Levitating3 hours ago
      ~/bin is actually created per default on OpenSUSE (though it's removal has been discussed several times).
    • zhouzhao3 hours ago
      Unclutter your $HOME!
  • luplex4 hours ago
    similarly, I start all my underscorends with an underscore
  • bronlund4 hours ago
    This is just brilliant. Thanks.
  • yunohn3 hours ago
    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.
  • 4 hours ago
    undefined
  • z0ltan33 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined