Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980708094258.18a78ffe@shadow.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 09:42:58
To: Chris Fifield <ubd2011 AT InfoNET DOT st-johns DOT nf DOT ca>
From: Ralph Proctor <ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net>
Subject: Re: Can I try BASH?
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980707223633.10919B-100000@InfoNET.st-johns.
 nf.ca>
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19980707102044 DOT 1e3f478a AT shadow DOT net>
 <3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19980707102044 DOT 1e3f478a AT shadow DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

At 10:40 PM 7/7/98 -0230, you wrote:

>...........or use it as your shell instead of COMMAND.COM.
>
>//\\ Chris Fifield          | ubd2011 AT infonet DOT st-johns DOT nf DOT ca
>\\// St. John's, NF, Canada | (709) 364-2811

Now this is a clever idea. For years I've reading about substitutes for
COMMAND.COM, but never had
the guts to try one. I hope this is in the docs.

I just finished installing the binary, m, and d zips (I only want the d for
the txt and htm docs, the rest I deleted--I mean from d only--not b or m).
I'm looking over the info, txt and htm now before firing
BASH.EXE

Thanks,

Ralph