From: "Weiqi Gao" <weiqigao AT crl DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Newbie question: BASH as a shell?
Date: 14 Dec 1996 04:49:15 GMT
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <01bbe97a$0510f560$0f0171a5@weiqigao>
References: <19961213 DOT 162219 DOT 7927 DOT 2 DOT Praxis_Beta AT juno DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl7.crl.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Bruce A Locke <praxis_beta AT juno DOT com> wrote in article
<19961213 DOT 162219 DOT 7927 DOT 2 DOT Praxis_Beta AT juno DOT com>...
> 
> I have "heard" alot of people talk about using BASH as a shell...
> 
> I downloaded the bash archive with the intention that it would let me
> learn how to be a pro with BASH.
> But when I try "ls" BASH says:
> 
> ls: command not found
> 
> Is BASH meant to be used like a replacement for command.com or is it just
> like a batch file facility?
> If it is like a replacement, am I missing an archive of some kind?
> 
First of all, the bash as a DOS primary shell idea died pretty fast because
bash.exe "does not confirm to the requirements of a DOS shell" (according
to someone who knows these things.)

So I'm running bash from the COMMAND.COM prompt now (in DOS 6.22, and from
an icon in Windows 95).  It works just fine.

Bash cannot find the "ls" command probably because "ls" is not in your
PATH, either you haven't downloaded the package that contains "ls" (the
shell utilities) or you haven't put it on your PATH yet.

-- 
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao AT crl DOT com