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: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:04:53 -0400
- Subject: Re: 4NT vs. Bash (Was Re: problem with find/grep)
- References: <013001c4b07a$9a10afa0$0401a8c0@dan> <Pine.GSO.4.61.0410121300160.24643@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:08:01PM -0400, 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...
>
>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...
I don't think that bash has an equivalent to the "eset" command.
eset allows you to edit the path or other environment variable.
cgf