To add to what Matt said, when I ditched Windows 2000 and went to the real
thing (Linux) I found out what I had been missing trying to get things working
in Windows (especially easy of installation of Emacs, LaTeX, etc., speed, true
operating system with symbolic links, etc.). -Frank Harrell
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:10:31 -0500 (EST)
Matt Calder <calder@phz.com> wrote:
> Michael,
> About a year ago I tried a multitude of these ported shells in an effort
> to compile perl from source (it would not compile from the standard command
> prompt). I was not able to accomplish this task with either. In addition, I
> wanted an alternative shell to run under emacs on windows (98 to be precise).
> Again after much effort I was unable to get acceptable results. Perhaps these
> are not the best yardsticks to measure a shell by. If I recall correctly I
> tried
> a port of bash, csh, tcsh, and 4DOS.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Michael Prager wrote:
>
> > At 03:57 PM 02/22/2002 -0500, Matt Calder wrote:
> >
> > >Right, what windows lacks is a decent shell in which to use these
> > >tools. If anyone knows otherwise please share.
> >
> > Last time I investigated, most of the Unix shells had been ported to
> > Windows, if that's what you mean by "decent." Most of them are available
> > free.
> >
> > A more MS-like shell is available commercially. That is 4NT (or 4DOS for
> > the DOS-based Windows versions) from JP Software. Those shells provide
> > command aliasing and abbreviation; directory history recall; command
> > recall, completion, and editing; ability to associate command files with
> > interpreters; and more, while retaining quite close compatibility with the
> > native MS shells. What the JP programs don't provide is a direct
> > translation of Unix shell scripting languages (which to me are overly
> > cryptic); however, you can easily use Python or other scripting language
> > (or use the 4NT/4DOS extended batch language, certainly no worse than that
> > of the Unix shells).
> >
> > Another option would be to install a complete Unix emulation layer, like
> > the MKS toolkit or (I believe) cygwin.
> >
> > There are excellent Windows character-based file managers, editors, etc.,
> > available for free or at nominal cost.
> >
> > Those are some of the options for making Windows shell usage more
> > interesting and productive. Whether any person will find them as good as,
> > worse than, or about the same as some of the Unix shells will be a matter
> > of taste (and perhaps habit).
> >
> > (Note that none of the above should be construed as official NOAA opinion
> > or endorsement.)
> >
> > --
> > Michael Prager, Ph.D. <Mike.Prager@noaa.gov>
> > NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
> > Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
> > http://shrimp.ccfhrb.noaa.gov/~mprager/
> > ***
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was distributed by s-news@lists.biostat.wustl.edu. To
> unsubscribe send e-mail to s-news-request@lists.biostat.wustl.edu with
> the BODY of the message: unsubscribe s-news
--
Frank E Harrell Jr Prof. of Biostatistics & Statistics
Div. of Biostatistics & Epidem. Dept. of Health Evaluation Sciences
U. Virginia School of Medicine http://hesweb1.med.virginia.edu/biostat
|