No, you're using both of them. If you are using scripts which themselves use bash, then you're using bash, albeit indirectly. You may not be using it in interactive mode, but you're still using it nonetheless. If you had replaced bash with fish, then you would not need bash on your computer at all.
Replace (in the context of Unix-like software) means completely replace, as in: no longer needing the original for any purpose.
> Replace (in the context of Unix-like software) means completely replace, as in: no longer needing the original for any purpose.
There is nothing about the context of Unix that makes this use case different than any other. If you yourself always blindly take "replace" to mean "completely replace", then that's fine. I would contend, however, that most regular people see the above scenario precisely like I outlined.
> then you're using bash, albeit indirectly.
This line, however, makes me think that you purposefully ignore the example because with your reasoning we are all using C no matter if we've never seen the language at all, if the case is that a language we use is compiled to C. By this reasoning users of Chicken Scheme and Gambit Scheme are using C, because both of these Scheme variants are compiled down to C.
I find it strange that you would be so interested in setting the limits for what other people constitute "use". I've told you several times that for personal use I've replaced bash with fish. This, apparently, is not enough for you. I made a scenario to illustrate how silly it sounds to say Person A hasn't replaced Haskell.
Someone calls you and you are in your study. Your friend Janet is in the living room downstairs. The person on the phone asks: "Is Janet there?". How would you respond to this question?
> There is nothing about the context of Unix that makes this use case different than any other.
I disagree; the programs which make up a Unix-like system are designed to be modular (even extremely so, compared to {say} Windows), which greatly facilitated the development of GNU, a replacement for Unix.
"As the GNU Project's reputation grew, people began offering to donate machines running Unix to the project. These were very useful, because the easiest way to develop components of GNU was to do it on a Unix system, and replace the components of that system one by one...it was legitimate to use a proprietary package when that was crucial for developing a free replacement that would help others stop using the proprietary package...Today we no longer have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them with free operating systems." --from https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
> With your reasoning we are all using C no matter if we've never seen the language at all
Well, we kind of are. For example: if we haven't replaced all our copies of libc by 2038 with one that supports dates after 2038, then we're all screwed. Whether or not we 'personally' use C or not.
> Janet
Well, skipping over the fact that I don't know anyone named Janet (;-D) I'd say "Janet's downstairs, let me get her for you."
No, you're using both of them. If you are using scripts which themselves use bash, then you're using bash, albeit indirectly. You may not be using it in interactive mode, but you're still using it nonetheless. If you had replaced bash with fish, then you would not need bash on your computer at all.
Replace (in the context of Unix-like software) means completely replace, as in: no longer needing the original for any purpose.