X-Authentication-Warning:	kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:25:57 -0600
From:	JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: newbie
Message-ID:	<20010131102557.A2585@kendall.sfbr.org>
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010129082033 DOT 28507L-100000 AT is> <slrn97bapv DOT 4d2 DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <9597vh$n6u$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<9597vh$n6u$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>; from broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 02:37:37PM +0000
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

-: Every remotely decent shell can do it. Which only serves to prove the
-: point that command.com isn't a decent shell. So, what else is new?

Are there *any* advantages (other than being able to run DOS batch
files), to loading bash on top of command.com?  IOW, is there any
good reason *not* to load bash as your primary shell? (Easier said
than done maybe, but's let's keep it hypothetical).

- Raw text -