Linux-Advocacy Digest #610, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: WINDOZE is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OS Sound OFF. (VBOpus)
Re: I Will Survive (without Windows) (VBOpus)
Dumbing down linux? (mlw)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux on a 486 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win 98 Ena CD Exploded in the CD Drive ! (Bob Lyday)
Re: Whistler review. (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WINDOZE is awful
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:14:35 +0000
Adam Majer wrote:
> nothing really. It is just that if you install lilo to MBR, Windoze will
> overwrite it when you install it. Then you try to put linux back there.
> ok. But then if you install 2k, well, you can't boot 95. AGGH! :(
Correct Windows 95/98/ME will overwrite the MBR.
Windows 2000 didn't overwrite the MBR when I installed it on a system with
System Commander already installed. Not sure what happens with LILO
installed.
> Maybe you can help me a bit, I have Linux on hda3 with that the start
> partition. Win95 on hda1 and Win2k on hdb1. But Win2k overwrote the
> bootloar on MBR on hda. So now, to boot 95 I have to select MBR on hda
> to start, that starts the win2k loader, and in that loader then boots
> 95. How can I move the 2k loader to the hdb1? So I can boot different
> OSes directly from lilo.
Use LILO not the WIN2K loader. LILO to select Linux or Windows 2000. Then
Windows 2000 to select Windows 95 or Windows 2000. It's not pleasant but it
works.
> Also, any way to hide partitions in linux? [using lilo or related free
> linux stuff]
System Commander can hide partitions but it's not free.
There is also a free partition tool that can hide partitions but is limited
to 8Gbyte disks. I under the author is working on large disk support but
hasn't got there yet. Now where did I put that URL...?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:17:49 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> MF is of course the british company Micro Focus.
> I thought you would at least know that.
Why would I know that Charlie? I've never heard Micro Focus referred to as
MF.
So, Charlie, what's your answer? Why are you still using software to which
MF have no answer? Why aren't you suing them? Why aren't you changing to
something better?
You're in this group whining about Windows 2000 but what are you _doing_
about it?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (VBOpus)
Date: 02 Dec 2000 20:15:19 GMT
Subject: Re: OS Sound OFF.
Mandrake 7.0- My favorite(obviously), learning, programming
Windows 98SE- games, expirencing the horror of AOL
CP/M 2.2- on an old Kaypro, historical curiosity
MacOS- PB160(until Linux works), Powermac 6100
DR GEM- on an Atari STe, historical curiosity
Not Currently installed-
SCO Openserver- So I can say I have a commercial Unix too
FreeBSD 2.2.5- haven't gotten around to it yet
SunOS- Need keyboard and hard drive for my old Sun 3/50
OS/2 2.0- no reason, just isn't worth the space
Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, SuSE, etc-
Didn't want to loose my perfectly functional Linux system, mostly from books
Lisa Office System- bet no one knows what THAT is.
http://lisa.sunder.net/
AT&T Unix System V- nothing to run it on
Minix- Linux is better
LinuxVR- My PDA hasn't gotten here yet
a $150 PDA that runs Linux, X, and Bash?
http://www.agendacomputing.com
Others, but this is way too long as it is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (VBOpus)
Date: 02 Dec 2000 20:19:39 GMT
Subject: Re: I Will Survive (without Windows)
I reposted it on Userfriendly.org(with due credit, of course).
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dumbing down linux?
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 15:25:03 -0500
I have read a few things on this group and I am curious. There seems to
be a consensus that RedHat is dumbing down Linux. I am using it, and it
has all the things I need. I can still configure it from vi when I need
too. It doesn't seem to be missing things from previous releases, with
the exception of "glint" and I don't think I've seen that since 5.2.
KDE and Gnome have added a lot of more <euphemism> user friendly
</euphemism> applets, but it is not as if they are replacing more hard
core tools with the prettier ones. They are simply adding.
So how are they "dumbing it down?"
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:16:33 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, javelina
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:07:24 GMT
> <902dfr$c8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >> Can't say I ever saw an IRIX, do you mind
> >> telling why you think it's better?
> >
> >Because the icon of a core dump looks like
> >a crushed Cadillac with tailfins.
>
> Uh huh. <grin>
>
> Not that I use IRIX, myself. On KDE, core files look like
> yellow bombs with X'ed eyes and a mouth with a tongue hanging out.
> Or maybe that was Gnome; I forget now.
>
> On another system -- HP/UX CDE -- core files are
> little exploded firecrackers.
>
> (Why it matters, I don't know. Don't like the icon? Change it.
> I don't know the details for KDE, but it shouldn't be that difficult.)
>
> NT of course doesn't have core files. It just has BSOD's. :-) :-)
Actually, it has. It's called memory dumps
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:25:54 +0200
"bob_more" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> just on observation, of all the reviews I've heard about netscrape 6, be
it on
> windows, mac or linux, it sucks. I just would like to point out the one
thing
> that has changed since earlier versions, the rather unsavory influence of
aol.
Your post shows no clear indication what is your own text and what is being
qouted, thus making it hard to read your text and understand what you are
replying to.
Please configure kexpress so it would show what you are qouting.
The most used sign is ">", btw.
Other than this, I agreed.
And not only I.
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-11/lw-11-netscape6.html
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:29:54 +0200
"Adam Schuetze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:37:08 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > I don't know, which is why I read things such as "933Mhz Intel Pentuim
II
> > top-of-the-line!!!!!!!!! & a 64MB 100Mhz RAM" and laugh at them.
>
> Exactly! It's bizarre. Vendors must be stupid, or something.
Stupid buyers, actually.
They look at the processor speed and say "wow this is *really* fast!"
And then they might look at the display adapter, and get a good one. (such
as voodoo 5, which took 4GB out of my system)
But never *once* think about their RAM.
> > No matter what is going on, you *always* need more RAM.
>
> Thats about the size of it. I don't think (within reason of
> course) that you can ever have to much ram.
4GB is pretty much the limit on a 32bit processor.
I know that until recently, Linux has been limited to 2 GB on i386, SuSE
raised the limit to 4GB, but I don't have the details about it.
Win2K pro can scale to 2GB (2 CPU), Server support 4GB (4 CPU), Advance
Server 8GB (8 CPU).
DataCenter can handle more, but I can't recall if it's 16GB ram or 32GB,
it's 32 CPUs, anyway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 20:34:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:30:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:07:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>
> >> >> For a very lightweight window manager that has a clock
> >> >> at the bottom of the screen, multiple workspaces, and
> >> >> kde compatibility, you might want to look at Blackbox.
> >>
> >> >The trouble with migrating to other window managers is that,
> >> >as a new convert to Linux, I don't automagically know how
> >> >to switch to the new window manager after having installed
>
> Since you are trying to run on a much smaller hardware
> platform than most distributions assume, I think you're
> going to be stuck with having to learn how to customize.
And since I enjoy Slackware, this will not be as much of
a problem. :)
> And, yes, the documentation for doing that isn't designed
> for new users and isn't entirely up to date. Remember,
> though, that you're not going to get NT4 running in 16 MB
> at all
Not true. I took a course on Windows NT Workstation this
semester (so the information is fresh in my mind), and the
minimum requirements for Windows NT are well below what's
available on the laptop I'm using. Windows NT minimum
requirements are a 486/33, 117MB of hard drive space, 16MB
of RAM, and 16 color VGA. My laptop is a 486/75, 1GB of
hard drive space, 16MB of RAM, and some weird Western
Digital video capable of 256 color SVGA.
If I was *inclined* to install WinNT4, I could do so on
this system.
> and a typical Linux distribution is more comparable to
> NT in features than to Win95.
Again, Linux installs in less hardware than NT, but the
platform I'm using can install either one. Ironically,
WinNT would take *less* configuration to install on
my laptop than Linux.
> So you can expect to do some hacking.
>
> I'd tell you all about the fvwm95 start menu,
> except that I've never used fvwm95.
I've been poring through the .fvwm95rc file, and I
have a better clue as to editing the "start menu".
> > As seen below (I started from the bottom when
> > replying), KDE and GNOME are not suitable for
> > the install, hence they are not "options".
>
> Oh well. You'll have to learn to install and
> configure something else then if you don't like
> what your distribution provides.
Fortunately, what I'm installing is a base Slackware
with X, so FVWM95 is what it "provides".
Frankly, you can use the graphical install on RedHat
to have it use some other window manager, so you
don't need to switch it post-install.
> > What I want is a desktop clock and a few other
> > buttons. What I don't have is the recommended
> > system requirements to run KDE or GNOME.
>
> Try blackbox,
Blackbox has no background image capability, while
FVWM2/95 both have this option.
> fvwm2 (not 95...they're different),
FVWM95 is a hack of FVWM95, hence the information
for FVWM2 generally applies to FVWM95.
> twm, or icewm.
>
> There are lots of others, but you're going to
> have to install and configure them yourself if
> they aren't in your distribution. Some are
> easier to configure than others.
I'm thinking of sticking with FVWM95, especially
since learning of the "no background images"
anti-feature in Blackbox.
> >> If you want something more like Windows, then
> >> you ought to use one of the more Windows-like
> >> desktops, such as KDE or Gnome.
> >
> > On a laptop with less than 1GB of hard drive
> > space and 16MB of RAM?
>
> My laptop has 860 MB of space after subtracting
> the special hibernation partition and the special
> Compaq Setup partition. It used to have 16 MB of
> memory, but now has 48.
Unfortunately, my Compaq LTE Elite 486/75C has some
weird memory chip, and I'm not even sure they made
an upgrade for it.
> I don't use KDE on it, but that's the default my
> distribution gave me. I wanted to use the same
> distro on laptop and desktop, so I learned how to
> change window managers. It turned out to be pretty
> easy.
I tried running KDE once on the laptop, but soon realized
that every bit of software I wanted to run was not in
KDE and was in GNOME, so I compromised and installed
part of GNOME and none of KDE, using the FVWM95 window
manager. Works pretty well, and GNumeric comes up
when I need it.
> I ended up keeping KDE on the machine (because I
> like some of the apps). I use the kdm GUI login
> manager and simply added an entry to
> /opt/kde/share/config/kdmrc to use a script called
> "bbox" as the window manager. That script starts
> blackbox and a couple of apps.
>
> >All I'm saying is that it should be easier to update
> >the menus on FVWM2/95, Blackbox, or whatever non-KDE
> >or non-GNOME X Window Manager you HAVE TO USE thanks
> >to low memory and/or low disk space restrictions.
>
> The Blackbox menu is pretty easy. Just a single text
> file with a simple structure. It gets re-read
> automatically if you change it, which avoids the need
> to restart to see changes.
>
> >> FVWM doesn't even pretend to be a complete desktop.
> >> It looks a lot like Windows, and that's about it.
> >
> >FVWM has extremely low memory and hard drive
> >requirements, making it largely ideal for a laptop
> >with <1GB hard drive space and 16MB of physical RAM.
>
> Blackbox is even smaller, and it is much easier to
> configure IME. There's no "start button", just a
> root menu that you get by right-clicking on the
> background.
A feature it shares with FVWM2.
> There is a clock, there are multiple desktops, it
> supports simple themes and something called the
> "slit" that's sort of like the Windows system tray.
> That's about it.
>
> >> If you want minimal, you can have that with Linux.
> >> If you want easy point and click customization, you
> >> can have that. I don't know how to do both.
> >
> >It should be possible to have easy point and click
> >in any window manager.
>
> I think that the main reason you don't see this is
> because minimalist window managers tend to be favored
> by long-time Unix users. Another reason is that while
> you could do a basic thing easily, it is a never ending
> job and pretty soon your configurator is more complex
> than the window manager itself. And then somebody
> wants icons on the desktop and a taskbar and pretty
> soon you have written KDE. The author of Blackbox
> lists right on his web site some things that he will
> never consider adding because of his goal of minimalism.
>
> There are lots of window managers out there. Look around,
> maybe you'll find what you're looking for. At least there's
> a choice, inconvenient as it may be.
>
> >Its adding code to expand the audience of the window
> >manager. While not extremely important to free
> >software, open source models, one would think that
> >expanding Linux faster onto the desktop would appeal
> >to the makers of window manager Linux ports.
>
> The majority of new users have machines that are fully
> capable of running KDE. They are capable of running
> the latest MS-ware after all and these users do expect
> all the fancy gadgets. So the "market" for what you're
> asking for seems to me to be pretty limited. Cranky
> guys like me who are too cheap to buy a new laptop
> isn't a huge market <g>.
If Linux is currently being marketed to high-end
machines and the low-end is being *ignored*, then the
slogan "you can do everything in Linux on anything"
needs to be revised to something which isn't
*false advertising*, and low-end users should be
permitted hunting permits on anyone who says "gee,
you can run Linux on a 386!".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:42:31 +0200
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_rcW5.37294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad C. Mulligan
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:05:14 GMT
> > <uNYV5.31502$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Simon Palko wrote:
> > >> >
> > ><trimmed>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> What part of "UNDOCUMENTED" do you not understand???
> > >>
> > >> There are entire BOOKS covering undocumented Lose32 APIs.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Anyone else see the irony in this post???
> >
> > That depends.
> >
> > Are the books published by Microsoft?
> >
>
> "A rose by any other name"
http://mspress.microsoft.com/findabook/default.asp?SearchString=windows+api
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 20:41:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) wrote:
> In article <9060ed$9m0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Micah Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> i have a 81 meg hard disk and only 2 megs of ram.
> >
> >Ouch. I haven't seen a Linux distro which could run
> >in that tiny a space. The smallest rating I've
> >seen for a *usable* distribution is about 100MB of
> >hard drive space and 4MB of RAM. Slackware's
> >"ZipSlack" distribution for running in a 100MB DOS
> >partition won't even fit on your system.
>
> I ran mine in 80 MB for three years.
Okay, I should have said "a usable modern distribution."
Sure, I bet you could take Linux 1.0 and run it in 80MB.
You might even have a Linux 2.0 demo machine with 80MB.
> I do recommend more than 2MB RAM. That was the
> minimum back in 1994, and even going up to 4MB
> would be a significant gain. You ought to be
> able to get that from a scrap heap somewhere (some
> unused machine in someone's closet).
Heck, if someone sent me $5 or so for shipping, I'd drop
4 1MB 30-pin SIMMs in a padded envelope just to get them
out of my universal computer stuff drawer. :)
I think I've even got some--gasp of delight!--4MB 30-pin
SIMMs lying around somewhere. (hmmm, wonder if there
might be a market after all on EBay for used 30-pin
SIMMs...)
I greatly suspect that other computer guys out there
who hate throwing stuff out would be willing to make
similar deals on their older 30-pin SIMMs.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:51:48 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.binaries.games.microsoft,alt.binaries.games.microsoft.age-of-empires,alt.binaries.games.microsoft.rise-of-rome,alt.conspiracy.microsoft,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.cisco,alt.games.microsoft,alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,alt.news.microsoft
Subject: Re: Win 98 Ena CD Exploded in the CD Drive !
This is a little-known fact but Windows 98 is actually radioactive!
Yes, the "world's most popular software" is downright toxic! This is
probably the reason for the explosion. Also, excessive use of the
Windows OS has been known to actually shrink many males' penises.
This is probably the main reason for all the fanfare about Viagra.
The impotence epidemic is probably mostly being caused by the
Microsoft monopoly. If you don't believe me, look at Bill Gates, if
you can stand to. Now, tell me, does he look like he is hung? See my
point? Hey, they don't call it Microsoft for nothing!
> >
> > "Az" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90aacd$465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 2/12/2000 Saturday, 10:25am Kuwait Time. I put the Windows 98 Ena CD in
> > one
> > > of the IBM PC300GL 6275-730, which has Creative 52Xmx CD Drive. When I put
> > > the CD in, in few seconds time there was a big explosion, my coworkers
> > > rushed to wards me, asking what hapened. At that time I was not sure. I
> > > looked down, on the floor I found a broken peaces of CD, I realised its
> > > from the same CD which I just put in the CD drive, When i ejected the CD
> > > drive, the Windows 98 CD was in small peaces. One peace was found about 4m
> > > away from the pc and one about 2.
> > >
> > > Any can explane, if it is possible or not. I am working as a Technical
> > > Support, since 1986 and never came accross any thing as such. What could
> > > cause this.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Azhar.
--
Bob
Latest uncertified count as of 12/2/00: Al Gore leads in Florida by 7
votes! No kidding! Latest brainless Bushism (late November): "The
function of the executive branch is to interpret the laws". Latest
rumor from Florida: Apparently many of the elderly who voted for Pat
Buchanon actually thought they were voting for JAMES Buchanon!
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:03:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:37:30 +0200
<904176$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip for brevity]
>> What's the shell?
>
>What do you mean here?
For the benefit of education, since there seems to be quite a
bit of confusion here....
In the Unix world, a shell is a smallish program that essentially
communicates with the user, allowing him to type command lines in,
then executing them (actually, it passes most of them off to
either system(), or a fork()/exec(), after parsing them into
"words" -- note that "words" are usually delimited by whitespace here).
The short answer is that a shell is a command line interpreter -- which
gives rise to the term "CLI". The traditional shell is "/bin/sh";
on Linux that's most likely a symbolic link to the Bourne-again shell,
"/bin/bash". (On my system, it is, anyway.)
An extremely primitive shell can be written in Unix using
[f]gets(), strtok(), fork(), and execv(). (It's a bit like
building a kit car, though -- why bother when the Cadillac is
already there? :-) )
Most shells in Unix can also execute script files, and have a rich
number of operators and builtin commands such as 'if', 'case',
'for' or 'foreach', and 'while'. Syntaxes vary, of course;
'sh' and 'csh' are quite different. There is a POSIX specification
for /bin/sh (AFAIK, /bin/bash is 100% compliant), but csh has
some problems.
Shells on Unix can also do variable substitution using various
syntax forms involving '$'. Some of these forms can return
a default value if a variable has not been set.
Because of Unix's age, the shell has actually become a rather
large program -- /bin/bash on my system is 368K.
Contrast this to COMMAND.COM's 96K. (Peculiar, that. I thought
.COM files were restricted to 64K. Oh well.) Of course, a comparison
here might be slightly meaningless -- different OSes and all that.
Some shells can also take advantage of hooks in the TTY driver, and
can implement such things as history (using the arrow keys),
command-line editing, and word-backspace (control-W).
I don't know the details, but they are nice additions to the
command-line interface.
/bin/bash can also do command completion, file completion, and
command and file listing, using more of the same. Hit TAB and
it will attempt to complete the partial filename prefix.
Hit TAB twice, and get a listing of filenames. (If one really
wants a TAB in one's command line, hit CONTROL/V, then TAB.
Usually it's not a big issue, though.)
On Windows, both Win9x and WinNT, the executable programs
COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE both fit the bill, and have some of
the capabilities of Unix shells -- and have a scripting format
of their own, the '.BAT' file. There are also some
builtin commands -- 'CALL', 'IF', and 'GOTO' come to mind.
Variable substitutions are done using '%', tacked on both ends of
the variable. In Windows NT, one can go to Control Panel>System
and click on the Environment tab to set variables; these will go
to all new processes. I don't know if existing processes can
detect environment changes at this level. (Windows 95 doesn't have
this capability; Windows 98 might. I don't know if firing off
a DOS shell in Win95 and using SET would work.)
I don't know what Win2k or WinMe have, shell-wise. I doubt that
COMMAND.COM or CMD.EXE have gone away, though.
Note that COMMAND.COM was extremely stupid, command-line wise.
Addins such as DOSKEY were very nice and allowed history.
At this point, though, I would hope COMMAND.COM has this capability
built in -- I haven't played with it lately so don't know offhand.
One can download various "Unix emulator" packages, complete with
command line interpreters that attempt to duplicate at least part
of a Unix environment on an NT or Win9x system. Cygwin is the
one that comes immediately to mind, and is arguably the best-known.
HTH.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 77 days, 16:07, running Linux.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
