Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:29:44 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Ralph Proctor <ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: bash as default shell
In-Reply-To:	<3.0.1.16.19980924100717.2f5f0acc@shadow.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980924192456.12533B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Ralph Proctor wrote:

> Eli: A technical point. Adding the "shorcut" for Bash would in no way
> change the current DOS -- command.com now available? Correct?

I'm not sure what are you asking here.

> I want to do
> this too, but on a machine I don't own and I don't want to change what is
> now working. So this would just be an added command interpreter--right?

The added shortcut only matters to those who click on it.  People who 
start a DOS box from the START button, or by clicking on another icon, 
still get COMMAND.COM loaded into the DOS box.

> Although, in a sense, I'm not sure you completely answered the question
> unless your answer is "NO"--I mean we would still be using command.com with
> bash imposed on it.

No, if the shortcut's command line says just "bash.exe", then COMMAND.COM 
is not loaded before it (AFAIK).  It's the same as with any other program 
that you launch from a shortcut.  Windows has no idea that Bash is 
special (nor is it, actually).

> But I have tried bash without command.com and while it
> works I've never been comfortable with it that way, so I now call up bash
> on top of command.com.

You are talking about primary shell in DOS.  This is Windows, so is 
slightly different.  I don't think you should have any problems with the 
shortcut method, but if you have, please share them.

- Raw text -