From:	rpolzer AT web DOT de (Rudolf Polzer)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: newbie
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> <20010131102557 DOT A2585 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
X-newsgroup:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
X-Mailer:	GehtDichNenScheissdreckAn 1.0
User-Agent:	GehtDichNenScheissdreckAn 1.0
Message-ID:	<slrn97h0b8.63p.rpolzer@rebounce.rpolzer-lx>
User-Agent:	slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux)
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:19:36 +0100
Lines:	16
NNTP-Posting-Host:	213.7.27.78
X-Trace:	980976309 news.freenet.de 124 213.7.27.78
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT freenet DOT de
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org> schrieb Folgendes:
> -: 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).

The version of bash I had did not have cp and so on as internal commands,
thus being everything but echo, # and cd very slow (half a second!). I got
bash from the cygwin package.

-- 
Nuper erat medicus, nunc est vispillo, Diaulus:
Quod vispillo facit, fecerat et medicus.

- Raw text -