Windows shell

Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell
replacement? Which is a good alternative?

···

--
-gaston

If you mean the command line shell: cygwin - there's even a Ruby package that you can install.

Kind regards

    robert

···

Gaston Garcia <gaston.garcia@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell
replacement? Which is a good alternative?

Gaston Garcia wrote:

Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell replacement? Which is a good alternative?

Yet another possibility:

If you mean a replacement for the command prompt terminal application itself (cmd.exe), there's a project called puttycyg http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/~medgar/*puttycyg*/ which allows a local bash session to be run using the PuTTY terminal.

i use the xoblite [http://xoblite.net/\] variant of blackbox
[http://www.bb4win.org/news.php\] for windows.

great if you don't like icons. has built in vc's, menu access to the
start menu. compatible with blackbox/fluxbox themes.

between xoblite and windowblinds, my xp desktop looks like my linux
desktop...

···

Gaston Garcia wrote on 9/4/2005 12:21 AM:

Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell
replacement? Which is a good alternative?

--
http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org

Robert Klemme ha scritto:

···

Gaston Garcia <gaston.garcia@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell
replacement? Which is a good alternative?

If you mean the command line shell: cygwin - there's even a Ruby package that you can install.

I prefer the mingw/msys pair[1] since they seem somewhat more "native".
BTW, if he means explorer.exe, I used LiteStep and thought it was cool a long time ago :slight_smile:

[1] http://www.mingw.org

sorry for not having been clear. I meant the command promt. thanks for all
the answers.

···

On 9/4/05, Daniel Tse <daniel@themissingyard.net> wrote:

Gaston Garcia wrote:

>Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell
>replacement? Which is a good alternative?
>
>
>
Yet another possibility:

If you mean a replacement for the command prompt terminal application
itself (cmd.exe), there's a project called puttycyg
http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/~medgar/*puttycyg*/ which allows a local
bash session to be run using the PuTTY terminal.

--
-gaston

That's not a good replacement. It's substandard, at best.

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

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.

-austin

···

On 9/4/05, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:

Gaston Garcia <gaston.garcia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell
> replacement? Which is a good alternative?
If you mean the command line shell: cygwin - there's even a Ruby package
that you can install.

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

I'm a fan of the pipes and filters design pattern, so on Windows,
Monad / MSH is supposed to be interesting. (Though iirc, it also has
some kind of security hole(s) -- surprise! -- that it won't be
included with Longhorn/Vista by default either.) But you can
download/run it on WinXP/2k3 too.

Installing Monad on XP or Win2k3

If you would like to install Monad on XP or Win2k3, you can do that by
following these instructions:

1. Acquire a passport account

2. http://beta.microsoft.com

3. Logon using the guest ID 'mshPDC'

4. Register using the registration form

5. Wait 24 hours for the confirmation email and account details.

6. Log back onto http://beta.microsoft.com and you will be
automatically redirected to the content.

The build of Monad acquired from this site is actually a newer version
that the build contained in the WinHec build. Also, there is
supporting documentation and collateral provided up on the beta site,
as well as an active community. So if you really want to play with
Monad, you should get this build and supporting collateral as opposed
to using the WinHec Monad installation described in my last post.

Oh, and if you don't know what Monad is (other than you Leibnitz
Monadology philosophers out there), it is a new command shell that
embraces .NET. It thoroughly relies on the metadata provided through
reflection of .NET objects to allow for dynamic scripting of behaviors
on the system. Rather than piping text output, which is the way most
command line interfaces handle the marshalling of data, MSH pipes
strongly typed .NET objects, allowing for much more fidelity and
precision in the types of commands and scripts that can be executed in
the MSH environment. But it also supports "cd", "dir", "ls" and all
your other favorite shell commands. Way cool.

http://weblogs.asp.net/ssadasivuni/archive/2004/07/06/173628.aspx

···

On 9/4/05, Gaston Garcia <gaston.garcia@gmail.com> wrote:

sorry for not having been clear. I meant the command promt. thanks for all
the answers.

On 9/4/05, Daniel Tse <daniel@themissingyard.net> wrote:
>
> Gaston Garcia wrote:
>
> >Is there anyone here that uses Windows XP and uses a windows shell
> >replacement? Which is a good alternative?
> >
> >
> >
> Yet another possibility:
>
> If you mean a replacement for the command prompt terminal application
> itself (cmd.exe), there's a project called puttycyg
> http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/~medgar/*puttycyg*/ which allows a local
> bash session to be run using the PuTTY terminal.
>
>

--
-gaston

The things that drive me crazy about cmd.exe, and the reason I'd personally be looking for a replacement, are:
   * Ridiculously hard to copy/paste
   * Inability to resize the number of columns on the fly

The block selection is sometimes convenient and the command history and path completion aren't substandard, but those are about the best things I can say about it.

···

On Sep 4, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

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. :slight_smile:

Regards,

Bill

···

From: "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@gmail.com>

Austin Ziegler wrote:

If you mean the command line shell: cygwin - there's even a Ruby package
that you can install.

That's not a good replacement. It's substandard, at best.

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

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.

This depends a *lot* on whether you are coming from the unix world or from the windows world. Running an xterm or rxvt (or even tabbed mrxvt's) from cygwin is as good as running it from linux. You have the standard X-windows copy (i.e. highlight) and paste (i.e. middle mouse button or shift-insert from the keyboard). Access to the standard unix editors - emacs, vim, nedit.

The cmd.exe window on XP, while better than dos-based Windows, doesn't provide a decent copy-paste mechanism (and yes, I know about quick-edit and insert mode) nor allow useful fonts, as well as many other short comings.

If you're from the Windows world and have no plans to go to posix-land, then maybe one of the other windows suggestions is what you're looking for (although, please don't stop at cmd.exe). If, however, you're either from the 'real' world or planning on going there any time soon, I *highly* recommend Cygwin.

  HTH,
    Charles

···

On 9/4/05, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

The things that drive me crazy about cmd.exe, and the reason I'd
personally be looking for a replacement, are:
   * Ridiculously hard to copy/paste

Um. If you have "QuickEdit" on (I *always* do), then any mouse selection
will set up copy. Enter is required to make it happen.

   * Inability to resize the number of columns on the fly

This isn't something that has affected me often, but if you have
something where you want to unwrap long output, I can see that it might
bother you (because the shell forces a \r\n).

The block selection is sometimes convenient and the command history
and path completion aren't substandard, but those are about the best
things I can say about it.

Well, the other "best" thing is that it doesn't force you to adopt a
non-standard filesystem view.

That said, I do *most* of my work in Windows with Total Commander
(http://www.ghisler.com) that is well worth its shareware cost. There's
*nothing* better, IMO (and there's *absolutely nothing* equal in Linux).
I also use WinKey (that Copernic has just stopped distributing, so you
can use HotKee from the Code Project instead; it's just harder to set
up) to launch gvim and irb directly, as well as command windows when I
need them.

I do all of my Ruby development on Windows boxes. Those who were at
RubyConf last year saw my primary development platform (a Tablet PC).

-austin

···

On 9/4/05, Gavin Kistner <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:

On Sep 4, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

Bill Kelly wrote:

It can't even escape its own metacharacters.

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

JScript/WSH replaces shell scripts for anything too hard for a batch file,
and IMHO it's prettier than shell language for some things.

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

You can get native ports for most of these GNU utils to Windows; I use these
heaps. It's not a shell issue at all.

<snip vitriol>

Cheers,
Dave

Austin Ziegler wrote:

If you mean the command line shell: cygwin - there's even a Ruby package
that you can install.

That's not a good replacement. It's substandard, at best.

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

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.

This depends a *lot* on whether you are coming from the unix world or
from the windows world.

Not at all. I personally find it mostly matters whether you have a bias
against Microsoft and cmd.exe more than anything. See, a lot of people
are confusing two different things. The first is the shell and the
second is the shell/terminal window. In Windows, they are combined, but
on Unix they are most certainly not. Compared to rxvt, then it is fair
to say that the cmd.exe window is substandard. Compared to xterm, then
the cmd.exe window is looking pretty damned good.

As far as the quality of the shell itself is concerned, then there's
additional considerations. The claim is that the batch language isn't
turing complete. I don't think that this is true as of cmd.exe, but it
is certainly limited (and has some annoying limitations) especially in
the way that some programs work slightly differently. As far as grep et
al. are concerned, there's no reason to *not* have those on a Windows
system. (I tend to use GUIfied versions that are far better, but ...)

That said, in most respects, cmd.exe is comparable to bash. Bash
certainly has a few more tricks up its sleeve compared to cmd.exe, but
it also comes with its own assumptions that *do not map well to
Windows*. One of the *dumbest* things that happens in Unix and Unix
shells is that the filesystems are case-sensitive instead of
case-preserving. Cygwin compounds this by not making the default bash
installation case-insensitive for tab completion. Cygwin further tries
to put a Unix filesystem view (unified filesystem, after a fashion) on a
fundamentally different filesystem structure. It meshes very poorly.

Running an xterm or rxvt (or even tabbed mrxvt's) from cygwin is as
good as running it from linux.

Not in the least. It runs slower and you still have to deal with the
Cygwin filesystem mistake.

You have the standard X-windows copy (i.e. highlight) and paste (i.e.
middle mouse button or shift-insert from the keyboard). Access to the
standard unix editors - emacs, vim, nedit.

I have access to vim/gvim from cmd.exe. I wouldn't be caught dead using
emacs (even if Matz chooses to use it, vim is better), and nedit sucks.
IMO. But this is a shell holy war waged by people who don't actually
know what they're talking about, not an editor holy war.

By the way, I *do* know what I'm talking about, having used DOS, 4DOS,
4NT, cmd.exe, sh, ksh, csh, tcsh, bash, and zsh. I've also used
mainframe shells and the VMS shell and even played with Monad (I felt it
was excessively verbose, but an interesting idea).

When I'm on Linux, I will use bash. (For a variety of reasons, I try to
do so on AIX, Solaris, and HP-UX, too, although ksh is acceptable.) On
Windows, I simply use cmd.exe because that's what is native. If it's a
machine that I have control

The cmd.exe window on XP, while better than dos-based Windows, doesn't
provide a decent copy-paste mechanism (and yes, I know about
quick-edit and insert mode) nor allow useful fonts, as well as many
other short comings.

Name them, if you can. Your statement about copy/paste is incorrect --
it *is* a good copy/paste mechanism. I use it to *great* effect daily,
whereas I fight with (and have always fought with) Linux terminals
trying to be too smart about selection. The only one I like is the copy
selection of screen. And I really don't know what you mean about "useful
fonts". Lucida Console (the TrueType option provided) is an excellent
font that I miss when I am stuck on Linuxes that have bad fonts (which
is most of them).

If you're from the Windows world and have no plans to go to
posix-land, then maybe one of the other windows suggestions is what
you're looking for (although, please don't stop at cmd.exe). If,
however, you're either from the 'real' world or planning on going
there any time soon, I *highly* recommend Cygwin.

And, on the other hand, as someone who swaps between POSIXland and
Windows-land daily, I highly recommend using Cygwin *only* for Xterm
access to remove Linux/Unix computers. It works like crap for nearly
everything else, and it doesn't mesh well with Windows (some of this is
fixable by better default values, but some of it is completely unfixable
because of bad ideas in the core).

Remember, I'm not saying that it's perfect. But it's a damn sight better
than trying to use Cygwin on Windows as one's normal shell or terminal.

The "real world" comment is garbage. When 90% of the world runs on
Windows, there's no call for that sort of bigotry, unless you're just
being an ass.

-austin

···

On 9/5/05, Charles Plager <cplager+news@physics.ucla.edu> wrote:

On 9/4/05, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

Austin Ziegler wrote:

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

The things that drive me crazy about cmd.exe, and the reason I'd
personally be looking for a replacement, are:
  * Ridiculously hard to copy/paste

Um. If you have "QuickEdit" on (I *always* do), then any mouse selection
will set up copy. Enter is required to make it happen.

The column copy mode by default is ridiculous.

  * Inability to resize the number of columns on the fly

This isn't something that has affected me often, but if you have
something where you want to unwrap long output, I can see that it might
bother you (because the shell forces a \r\n).

I find that this can be a real problem (especially when running other people's programs)

The block selection is sometimes convenient and the command history
and path completion aren't substandard, but those are about the best
things I can say about it.

Well, the other "best" thing is that it doesn't force you to adopt a
non-standard filesystem view.

I think you don't understand the point of Cygwin: "Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows." If you don't like linux, then don't use Cygwin.

If you're never going to work in a posix environment, then finding a good shell in windows is probably what you want to do. If, however, you work both in Windows and Linux-land, then there aren't very

[snip]

I do all of my Ruby development on Windows boxes. Those who were at
RubyConf last year saw my primary development platform (a Tablet PC).

Well, that explains a lot.

Charles

···

On 9/4/05, Gavin Kistner <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:

On Sep 4, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:

Dave Burt wrote:

Bill Kelly wrote:

It can't even escape its own metacharacters.

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

JScript/WSH replaces shell scripts for anything too hard for a batch file, and IMHO it's prettier than shell language for some things.

Or just use Ruby + Win32OLE.

James

···

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

Bill Kelly wrote:

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

You can get native ports for most of these GNU utils to Windows; I use these
heaps. It's not a shell issue at all.

I had in mind 'dir' and the headers and footers it outputs, which
is a built-in command to cmd.exe, is it not? But sorry for
generalizing. As I mentioned I use the Cygwin GNU tools, even if
under cmd.exe.

> <snip vitriol>

Just to clarify, it wasn't directed at Austin, but MS-DOS. :slight_smile:

I'd stand by the hypothesis that the way the built-in 'dir' command
works is a symptom of the general lack of focus on program
interoperability that pervades MS-DOS.

More cmd.exe fun:

How to invoke one program and use its output in the command line?
Ex: HOME=`pwd | cut -d/ -f1-4`

Being able to invoke sub-shells on the command line would be nice.
Ex: ( tar cf - /home ) | ( cd /mnt/backup; tar xvfp - )

How to flexibly redirect output streams?
Ex: 2>&1

Anyway sorry for more OT posting... I will do some Ruby
programming this instant. :slight_smile:

Regards,

Bill

···

From: "Dave Burt" <dave@burt.id.au>

Austin Ziegler wrote:

That's not a good replacement. It's substandard, at best.

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

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.

This depends a *lot* on whether you are coming from the unix world or
from the windows world.

Not at all. I personally find it mostly matters whether you have a bias
against Microsoft and cmd.exe more than anything. See, a lot of people
are confusing two different things. The first is the shell and the
second is the shell/terminal window. In Windows, they are combined, but
on Unix they are most certainly not.

Ummm... Yes. It must be my secret bias against Microsoft. And yes, I did know there was a difference between shells and terminals.
  

Compared to rxvt, then it is fair
to say that the cmd.exe window is substandard. Compared to xterm, then
the cmd.exe window is looking pretty damned good.

O.k. so you'll agree that rxvt is nicer than cmd window. Now we're getting somewhere

(stuff deleted)

That said, in most respects, cmd.exe is comparable to bash. Bash
certainly has a few more tricks up its sleeve compared to cmd.exe, but
it also comes with its own assumptions that *do not map well to
Windows*. One of the *dumbest* things that happens in Unix and Unix
shells is that the filesystems are case-sensitive instead of
case-preserving. Cygwin compounds this by not making the default bash
installation case-insensitive for tab completion. Cygwin further tries
to put a Unix filesystem view (unified filesystem, after a fashion) on a
fundamentally different filesystem structure. It meshes very poorly.

As you almost alluded to, you can tell bash to be case insensitive (which I think is a mistake, but...). I disagree here. I find that it messes quite well.

Running an xterm or rxvt (or even tabbed mrxvt's) from cygwin is as
good as running it from linux.

Not in the least. It runs slower and you still have to deal with the
Cygwin filesystem mistake.

Is it just the case-sensitivity? The purpose of cygwin is to give you access to a posix-like environment on Windows. And it does it pretty well. If you don't want a posix-like environment, then don't use Cygwin or linux, or mac os X; You still have VME, though).

You have the standard X-windows copy (i.e. highlight) and paste (i.e.
middle mouse button or shift-insert from the keyboard). Access to the
standard unix editors - emacs, vim, nedit.

I have access to vim/gvim from cmd.exe. I wouldn't be caught dead using
emacs (even if Matz chooses to use it, vim is better), and nedit sucks.
IMO. But this is a shell holy war waged by people who don't actually
know what they're talking about, not an editor holy war.

Yes, you can get Emacs and vim for windows. Both of those make life a lot nicer. And nedit is a *LOT* nicer than notepad or wordpad.

By the way, I *do* know what I'm talking about, having used DOS, 4DOS,
4NT, cmd.exe, sh, ksh, csh, tcsh, bash, and zsh. I've also used
mainframe shells and the VMS shell and even played with Monad (I felt it
was excessively verbose, but an interesting idea).

When I'm on Linux, I will use bash. (For a variety of reasons, I try to
do so on AIX, Solaris, and HP-UX, too, although ksh is acceptable.) On
Windows, I simply use cmd.exe because that's what is native. If it's a
machine that I have control

Apparently, you fell asleep here mid-sentence.

So, great. You like the cmd window. A lot of people I know (well, all of them, actually) strongly prefer the Cygwin environment when working on windows to that of the cmd window.

The cmd.exe window on XP, while better than dos-based Windows, doesn't
provide a decent copy-paste mechanism (and yes, I know about
quick-edit and insert mode) nor allow useful fonts, as well as many
other short comings.

Name them, if you can. Your statement about copy/paste is incorrect --
it *is* a good copy/paste mechanism. I use it to *great* effect daily,
whereas I fight with (and have always fought with) Linux terminals
trying to be too smart about selection. The only one I like is the copy
selection of screen. And I really don't know what you mean about "useful
fonts". Lucida Console (the TrueType option provided) is an excellent
font that I miss when I am stuck on Linuxes that have bad fonts (which
is most of them).

Right. A great copy-paste mechanism. Unless, of course, you're trying to copy text. As far as fonts, I've seen a lot more available on linux and other Windows programs that are just simply not available for the cmd.exe.

As far as selecting text, what do you fight with. You highlight the text you want to copy and you're done.

If you're from the Windows world and have no plans to go to
posix-land, then maybe one of the other windows suggestions is what
you're looking for (although, please don't stop at cmd.exe). If,
however, you're either from the 'real' world or planning on going
there any time soon, I *highly* recommend Cygwin.

And, on the other hand, as someone who swaps between POSIXland and
Windows-land daily, I highly recommend using Cygwin *only* for Xterm
access to remove Linux/Unix computers. It works like crap for nearly
everything else, and it doesn't mesh well with Windows (some of this is
fixable by better default values, but some of it is completely unfixable
because of bad ideas in the core).

You've used a recent version of Cygwin? I've had no problem getting Cygwin and Windows to mesh together.

Remember, I'm not saying that it's perfect. But it's a damn sight better
than trying to use Cygwin on Windows as one's normal shell or terminal.

I'd say the same thing about Cygwin. It's not perfect, but the cmd.exe window is one the ****iest things I've been forced to use.

The "real world" comment is garbage. When 90% of the world runs on
Windows, there's no call for that sort of bigotry, unless you're just
being an ass.

As far as programming goes, most people don't spend that much time in Windows. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Charles

Charles: Go back to your bigot hole. Until you actually know what you're
talking about, you have no business in this particular discussion,
because you're merely spewing misinformation and bigotry.

Austin Ziegler wrote:

Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.

The things that drive me crazy about cmd.exe, and the reason I'd
personally be looking for a replacement, are:
  * Ridiculously hard to copy/paste

Um. If you have "QuickEdit" on (I *always* do), then any mouse
selection will set up copy. Enter is required to make it happen.

The column copy mode by default is ridiculous.

Bollocks. The "smart" copy on Unix (that I've been dealing with since
1990 when I had access to the Sun lab at Boston University) is what's
stupid.

  * Inability to resize the number of columns on the fly

This isn't something that has affected me often, but if you have
something where you want to unwrap long output, I can see that it
might bother you (because the shell forces a \r\n).

I find that this can be a real problem (especially when running other
people's programs)

I find it rarely. Usually running other people's programs. Maybe you
just don't know how to run programs cleanly on Windows, or you want to
treat Windows like Unix and kvetch when it doesn't work right.

The block selection is sometimes convenient and the command history
and path completion aren't substandard, but those are about the best
things I can say about it.

Well, the other "best" thing is that it doesn't force you to adopt a
non-standard filesystem view.

I think you don't understand the point of Cygwin: "Cygwin is a
Linux-like environment for Windows." If you don't like linux, then
don't use Cygwin.

Don't go there. You don't know me, you don't know *shit* about what I
like or don't like. What I don't like are asinine platform bigots like
you who come spewing misinformation and bile. And no, Cygwin isn't a
Linux-like environment. It's a POSIX environment. It's also unstable,
unreliable, and badly configured by default.

FWIW, I *do* use Cygwin. When I have to. I also mostly use it for X so
that I can do ddd (or the equivalent) on the various Unix boxes for
which I develop. And have developed for a *long* time.

If you're never going to work in a posix environment, then finding a
good shell in windows is probably what you want to do. If, however,
you work both in Windows and Linux-land, then there aren't very

Wrong. Good developers know to use the best tools available for their
platform. On Linux, that's Xterm and descendants. On Windows, that's
*not* cygwin.

I do all of my Ruby development on Windows boxes. Those who were at
RubyConf last year saw my primary development platform (a Tablet PC).

Well, that explains a lot.

Yes, it does. It explains that I like cool geek toys and am not a
platform bigot. Can you say the same, Chuck?

-austin

···

On 9/5/05, Charles Plager <cplager+news@physics.ucla.edu> wrote:

On 9/4/05, Gavin Kistner <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:

On Sep 4, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

From: "Dave Burt" <dave@burt.id.au>

Bill Kelly wrote:

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

You can get native ports for most of these GNU utils to Windows; I
use these heaps. It's not a shell issue at all.

I had in mind 'dir' and the headers and footers it outputs, which is a
built-in command to cmd.exe, is it not? But sorry for generalizing.
As I mentioned I use the Cygwin GNU tools, even if under cmd.exe.

<snip vitriol>

Just to clarify, it wasn't directed at Austin, but MS-DOS. :slight_smile:

I'd stand by the hypothesis that the way the built-in 'dir' command
works is a symptom of the general lack of focus on program
interoperability that pervades MS-DOS.

More cmd.exe fun:
How to invoke one program and use its output in the command line?
Ex: HOME=`pwd | cut -d/ -f1-4`

Can't do that, as far as I can see, but that may just be where my
knowledge is sometimes limited. However, what you would want might be:

  SET HOME=%CD:~0,-5%

It's not *quite* the same (as cut uses fields), but you might also be
able to do something with SET /A.

Being able to invoke sub-shells on the command line would be nice.
Ex: ( tar cf - /home ) | ( cd /mnt/backup; tar xvfp - )

  C:\>(echo hello & echo hello2) && (echo goodbye & echo goodbye2)
  hello
  hello2
  goodbye
  goodbye2

I haven't got tar, etc. so I can't test the specific case. But as with
your next item (e.g., 2>&1), this is *built in*.

How to flexibly redirect output streams?
Ex: 2>&1

Exactly that.

This is part of the reason I get so damned frustrated when people slag
on cmd.exe. Most people do NOT know what is possible with cmd.exe -- and
they don't bother to find out. Then you have people like Charles Plager
who are so blinkered by their bigotry that they can't even see it.

-austin

···

On 9/5/05, Bill Kelly <billk@cts.com> wrote:
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca