Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3AB229B4.18CAEA6@kpnqwest.no> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:56:52 +0100 From: "Stein M. Eliassen" Organization: KPNQwest Norway X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" Subject: Re: Default shell References: <3AB1595A DOT 9C2002F9 AT kpnqwest DOT no> <3AB21447 DOT 3E584516 AT yahoo DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Earnie Boyd wrote: > > Are you asking if it is ok or are you saying that you've tried it and it > works for you. > At the time I was asking, I was asking for advise to do it or not, and possible how. But now, several hours later and after changing the comspec from the controlpanel; I don't think the change had any effects. The reason I asked was because I was messing around with the at-command and thought it might could make some difference to have bash as default-shell. For the time being I'm running at-commands like "c:\cygwin\bin\bash --login -i script_to_run_including_path.sh" Is this the preferred way of running at-commands with bash? Regards Stein -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple