This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
mailing list for the cygwin project.
RE: 4NT vs. Bash (Was Re: problem with find/grep)
- From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <BBuchbinder at niaid dot nih dot gov>
- To: 'Talk Amongst Yourselves' <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:25:07 -0400
- Subject: RE: 4NT vs. Bash (Was Re: problem with find/grep)
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
At Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:08 PM, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> Properly TITTTLing...
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Daniel Miller (IMI) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>
>>> I won't ask the implied "Why not use bash?" question...
>>
>> Hokay, then I won't answer!! I suspect this subject has been
>> discussed several times in the past here, if I recall past perusal
>> of the list... but there really *are* a few things that 4NT does
>> better (or does at all) as opposed to Bash.
>>
>> I'll admit, tho, that if I hadn't already paid for 4DOS/4NT (over a
>> decade ago, actually), I wouldn't buy it now, with Bash available
>> for free... Dan
>
> So, what *are* those things? It'd be interesting to find out where
> bash is deficient, and what tools could be used in Cygwin instead...
> Igor
See http://www.jpsoft.com/
4DOS ver. 7.5 has just been released for free. It is 16 bit and says that
it only runs on Win9x/Me, but I wonder if it might work in the NT DOS
subsystem.
These are replacement console shells for command.com or cmd.exe. They have
a lot more functionality than the MS programs; I'd put them as a lot closer
to bash in functionality than command.com/cmd.exe. in some ways they may be
more functional than bash, in others less. I'm still at ver. 5.5 so I
really couldn't compare.