From: Daniel Sheppard <daniels@...>
Date: 2005-09-05T13:50:18+09:00
Subject: Re: windows shell

Rather than getting a full-blown cygwin install going, I'm usually happy
with what's provided by http://unxutils.sf.net/ - though that's probably
because I have a whole network full of *nix machines to move work to if
my windows desktop can't take the heat. 

If I felt the need, I'd probably go to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu/productinfo/features/de
fault.mspx before having fun with cygwin.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Kelly [mailto:billk@cts.com] 
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2005 11:02 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: windows shell

From: "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@gmail.com>
> Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.

It can't even escape its own metacharacters.

Its scripting/command language isn't remotely Turing-complete.

Its commands don't output information in ways that facilitate being
piped together.

.. 'Could go on, but it's all downhill from here... variations on
themes, ideas, and metaphors that no-one at Microsoft has apparently
ever understood, despite their being established a decade or so before
Microsoft even came on the scene.

> Cygwin is a wholly unacceptable answer for a variety of reasons, but 
> mostly because it tries to impose a totally different way of thinking 
> on a system that doesn't map well that way.

Well; Cygwin tries to provide an environment in which unmodified Unix
programs can compile and run.  I use the hell out of the cygwin unix
progs (find, grep, diff, xargs, cp, mv, scp, rsync,
etc.) ... but I agree /bin/bash ends up being kind of a misfit in
Windows.

I use cmd.exe myself... but I absolutely loathe it, and everything
it stands for.                      :)


Regards,

Bill





#####################################################################################
This email has been scanned by MailMarshal, an email content filter.
#####################################################################################