home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.duc.auburn.edu!usenet
- From: hankedr@mail.auburn.edu (Darrel Hankerson)
- Subject: Re: ms_sh (shell) bugfix uploaded
- Message-ID: <1993Jan7.225643.6485@news.duc.auburn.edu>
- Sender: usenet@news.duc.auburn.edu (News Account)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lab1.duc.auburn.edu
- Organization: Auburn University, Alabama
- References: <1993Jan6.130445.12938@news.duc.auburn.edu> <RkwZwB4w165w@berry.Cary.NC.US>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:56:43 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <RkwZwB4w165w@berry.Cary.NC.US> pat@berry.Cary.NC.US (Pat Berry) writes:
- >I don't have access to a UNIX system right now. I have been seriously
- >considering installing Linux or Coherent on my 386, but I'm not sure
- >how much work is involved in getting them to peacefully coexist with
- >OS/2.
- >
- >Would a UNIX shell for OS/2 be close enough? If I can get the
- >equivalent of UNIX experience by making OS/2 behave like UNIX, that
- >would simplify matters immensely. Please tell me whether you think that
- >makes sense, and if so, which shell I should start with. Thanks!
-
- I'm not a unix expert. If by "Would a UNIX shell...be close enough?" you mean
- the usual tools (ls, cat, awk, grep, gcc, etc.) together with a csh-like shell
- then it may be close enough. Stewartson's ms_sh (I modified and uploaded
- to ftp-os2.nmsu.edu) is nice; bash may be worth a look (I use bash on the
- sparc, and the OS/2 bash does some scripts which break ms_sh, but I can't
- seem to get the bash setup correct on OS/2); Rommel recently uploaded an
- alpha release of ksh (I don't know much about ksh); Flowers (Oberon Soft)
- has f-shell (I don't know much about this either).
-
- You will be missing file links. You must use HPFS if you wish to be UNIX-like.
- Get the stuff in pub/os2/2.0/unix/gnu/, GNU emacs, and EMX/gcc, and decide
- for yourself.
-
- --Darrel Hankerson hank@ducvax.auburn.edu
-
-