Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>>That's not a good replacement. It's substandard, at best.
>>>
>>>Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
>>>I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
>>>cygwin/bash on Windows.
>>>
>>>Cygwin is a wholly unacceptable answer for a variety of reasons, but
>>>mostly because it tries to impose a totally different way of thinking
>>>on a system that doesn't map well that way.
>>
>>This depends a *lot* on whether you are coming from the unix world or
>>from the windows world.
> 
> Not at all. I personally find it mostly matters whether you have a bias
> against Microsoft and cmd.exe more than anything. See, a lot of people
> are confusing two different things. The first is the shell and the
> second is the shell/terminal window. In Windows, they are combined, but
> on Unix they are most certainly not. 

Ummm...  Yes.  It must be my secret bias against Microsoft.  And yes, I 
did know there was a difference between shells and terminals.
	


> Compared to rxvt, then it is fair
> to say that the cmd.exe window is substandard. Compared to xterm, then
> the cmd.exe window is looking pretty damned good.

O.k.  so you'll agree that rxvt is nicer than cmd window.  Now we're 
getting somewhere

(stuff deleted)

> That said, in most respects, cmd.exe is comparable to bash. Bash
> certainly has a few more tricks up its sleeve compared to cmd.exe, but
> it also comes with its own assumptions that *do not map well to
> Windows*. One of the *dumbest* things that happens in Unix and Unix
> shells is that the filesystems are case-sensitive instead of
> case-preserving. Cygwin compounds this by not making the default bash
> installation case-insensitive for tab completion. Cygwin further tries
> to put a Unix filesystem view (unified filesystem, after a fashion) on a
> fundamentally different filesystem structure. It meshes very poorly.

As you almost alluded to, you can tell bash to be case insensitive 
(which I think is a mistake, but...).  I disagree here.  I find that it 
messes quite well.

>>Running an xterm or rxvt (or even tabbed mrxvt's) from cygwin is as
>>good as running it from linux.
> 
> 
> Not in the least. It runs slower and you still have to deal with the
> Cygwin filesystem mistake.

Is it just the case-sensitivity?  The purpose of cygwin is to give you 
access to a posix-like environment on Windows.  And it does it pretty 
well.  If you don't want a posix-like environment, then don't use Cygwin 
or linux, or mac os X;  You still have VME, though).

>>You have the standard X-windows copy (i.e. highlight) and paste (i.e.
>>middle mouse button or shift-insert from the keyboard).  Access to the
>>standard unix editors - emacs, vim, nedit.
> 
> 
> I have access to vim/gvim from cmd.exe. I wouldn't be caught dead using
> emacs (even if Matz chooses to use it, vim is better), and nedit sucks.
> IMO. But this is a shell holy war waged by people who don't actually
> know what they're talking about, not an editor holy war.

Yes, you can get Emacs and vim for windows.  Both of those make life a 
lot nicer.  And nedit is a *LOT* nicer than notepad or wordpad.
> 
> By the way, I *do* know what I'm talking about, having used DOS, 4DOS,
> 4NT, cmd.exe, sh, ksh, csh, tcsh, bash, and zsh. I've also used
> mainframe shells and the VMS shell and even played with Monad (I felt it
> was excessively verbose, but an interesting idea).
> 
> When I'm on Linux, I will use bash. (For a variety of reasons, I try to
> do so on AIX, Solaris, and HP-UX, too, although ksh is acceptable.) On
> Windows, I simply use cmd.exe because that's what is native. If it's a
> machine that I have control

Apparently, you fell asleep here mid-sentence.

So, great.  You like the cmd window.  A lot of people I know (well, all 
of them, actually) strongly prefer the Cygwin environment when working 
on windows to that of the cmd window.

>>The cmd.exe window on XP, while better than dos-based Windows, doesn't
>>provide a decent copy-paste mechanism (and yes, I know about
>>quick-edit and insert mode) nor allow useful fonts, as well as many
>>other short comings.
> 
> 
> Name them, if you can. Your statement about copy/paste is incorrect --
> it *is* a good copy/paste mechanism. I use it to *great* effect daily,
> whereas I fight with (and have always fought with) Linux terminals
> trying to be too smart about selection. The only one I like is the copy
> selection of screen. And I really don't know what you mean about "useful
> fonts". Lucida Console (the TrueType option provided) is an excellent
> font that I miss when I am stuck on Linuxes that have bad fonts (which
> is most of them).

Right.  A great copy-paste mechanism.  Unless, of course, you're trying 
to copy text.  As far as fonts, I've seen a lot more available on linux 
and other Windows programs that are just simply not available for the 
cmd.exe.

As far as selecting text, what do you fight with.  You highlight the 
text you want to copy and you're done.

>>If you're from the Windows world and have no plans to go to
>>posix-land, then maybe one of the other windows suggestions is what
>>you're looking for (although, please don't stop at cmd.exe).  If,
>>however, you're either from the 'real' world or planning on going
>>there any time soon, I *highly* recommend Cygwin.
> 
> And, on the other hand, as someone who swaps between POSIXland and
> Windows-land daily, I highly recommend using Cygwin *only* for Xterm
> access to remove Linux/Unix computers. It works like crap for nearly
> everything else, and it doesn't mesh well with Windows (some of this is
> fixable by better default values, but some of it is completely unfixable
> because of bad ideas in the core).

You've used a recent version of Cygwin?  I've had no problem getting 
Cygwin and Windows to mesh together.

> Remember, I'm not saying that it's perfect. But it's a damn sight better
> than trying to use Cygwin on Windows as one's normal shell or terminal.

I'd say the same thing about Cygwin.  It's not perfect, but the cmd.exe 
window is one the ****iest things I've been forced to use.

> The "real world" comment is garbage. When 90% of the world runs on
> Windows, there's no call for that sort of bigotry, unless you're just
> being an ass.

As far as programming goes, most people don't spend that much time in 
Windows.  I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Charles