Bash scripts are often seen as a quick solution for continuous integration (CI) tasks, especially in smaller projects. However, the author argues that as teams grow and their needs become more complex, relying solely on bash can lead to significant inefficiencies. Many engineers have defended bash by highlighting its simplicity and ubiquity, but the author points out that these advantages diminish when the scale of operations increases. For larger teams, where CI serves as a critical part of infrastructure, the limitations of bash become apparent. A malfunctioning CI pipeline in such environments doesn't just slow down one person; it can cause project delays and impact multiple team members. The author acknowledges bash’s strengths: it's universally available, effective for straightforward tasks, easy to test locally, and understandable for many engineers. Yet, these benefits turn into drawbacks when teams need to manage complex workflows, like running tests across multiple services or deploying applications. Bash can handle these tasks, but it wasn't designed for them. The post emphasizes the importance of using a dedicated orchestrator for larger projects. This ensures that CI can efficiently handle multiple components, reducing the risk of bottlenecks and improving overall productivity. The conversation shifts from whether bash is adequate to what happens when teams outgrow it and why a more robust solution is necessary.