From:	locke AT mcs DOT net (Peter Johnson)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: BASH as default DOS shell under Windows 98?
Date:	Thu, 04 Mar 1999 23:53:19 GMT
Organization:	BiLogic Productions
Lines:	24
Message-ID:	<36df1caa.316946812@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 990303220311 DOT 25226A-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk> <7bl4kq$r29$1 AT oak DOT prod DOT itd DOT earthlink DOT net> <36de423b DOT 261027328 AT news DOT cso DOT uiuc DOT edu> <mvparvia DOT 920579623 AT snakemail DOT hut DOT fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	isr3193.urh.uiuc.edu
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Arg, you're right [insert foot into mouth].  Should have checked
before speaking :).  Still not certain whether it will work, though,
because of the CWSDPMI dependency.

Peter Johnson
locke AT mcs DOT net

On 4 Mar 99 20:33:43 GMT, mvparvia AT delta DOT hut DOT fi (Mikko V.I.
Parviainen) wrote:

>[On copying bash.exe as command.com]
>locke AT mcs DOT net (Peter Johnson) writes:
>>Um.. that would be a BAD idea.   Considering that command.com is NOT
>>an .exe file (.coms and .exes are loaded differently by DOS).
>
>Actually, I have the impression that command.com has been an exe file
>since at least MS-DOS 5.0. DOS determines the type of an executable
>from its internal structure, not file system name.
>
>If I recall correctly, one could run a file with any name as an 
>.exe-file, if only all relevant data is in the right place.   
>
>-- 

- Raw text -