Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!killer!wnp
From: wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: looking for DOS greppers
Message-ID: <2096@killer.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Nov-87 23:15:46 EST
Article-I.D.: killer.2096
Posted: Sat Nov 14 23:15:46 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Nov-87 06:46:38 EST
References: <1987Nov11.230357.14903@nonvon.uucp>
Reply-To: wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul)
Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 46

In article <1987Nov11.230357.14903@nonvon.uucp> apn@nonvon.UUCP (Alexander
Paul Novickis) writes:
>I agree with the first posting. MKS is not bug free although better than most
>public domain/shareware junk that is inflicted upon the world. Ever try
>feeding a shell script to the MKS "sh".... HAAH!! Anything but trivial code
>is rejected.

The only problems with MKS "sh" and shell scripts I've had were related to
SHAR files which included a PATH statement -- since DOS uses ';' instead of
':' to separate directories in a path, and uses ':' for disk drive specifieres.
That's not MKS' fault, that's just one of the limitations you have to deal with
when trying to emulate UNIX under DOS.

>Also, their "rm" command manages to bomb my hard disk if the "-r" option is 
>used, fairly consistantly. I've now gone back to "del" since it is both much
>faster and safer.

I've had no problems with "rm -r" either. Are you sure you are using the latest
version, and that your machine is working right?

>I do like thier "vi", though... a reasonably complete 
>implementation, although many of the finer points of a unix vi have been 
>omitted. It also bombs on lines longer than 80 characters, BUT at least I
>could edit files with it that are 900k long, and files that contain 
>IBM PC type graphic characters..... unlike kedit or ws or wp or brief.

I would really be interested in knowing what finer points of UNIX vi have
been omitted from MKS vi. The only thing I am aware of is the LISP-specific
features, and for most people that's not a problem.

I've also had very little problems with lines longer than 80 characters -
it handles them just like UNIX vi does - wraps them around in a rather 
braindamaged way, but the key is that it's compatible with UNIX.

>All in all I would say that it is worth the $100, although it is a far cry
>from the real answer.

You are right there, but then that's DOS for you. I would like to see all
those who flame MKS come up with a way around the limitations DOS imposes,
rather than just being critical.

DISCLAIMER: I have NO connection with MKS other than as a fairly satisfied
user.

Wolf N. Paul
ihnp4!killer!wnp