Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!wnp
From: wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RFC: role of command.com
Message-ID: <3997@killer.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 88 02:01:27 GMT
References: <4330076@hpindda.HP.COM>
Reply-To: wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul)
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 28

In article <4330076@hpindda.HP.COM> mintz@hpindda.HP.COM (Ken Mintz) writes:
>> Some of us hated command.com and switched to something else a long time ago.
>
>  I'm curious about the role of command.com with respect to running an
>  application.  This quote suggests that command.com is interchangeable, which
>  is what I thot.  However, when I ran into a particular problem, one person

Very likely that it was your overall version of DOS rather than simply
command.com.

A number of problems do come to mind, though, when thinking of exchanging
command.com for something else:

1. Very few of the command interpreters for DOS I have come across include
   a critical error handler -- most rely on command.com's resident part to
   provide that. This is the code which times out unsuccessful I/O operations,
   and prints the "Retry, Ignore, Abort?" message.

2. Any UNIX-like shells which use / as a path separator and - as the option
   character (switchar) cause potential trouble for applications which
   shell out to DOS.

3. Some DOS programs will not allow you to specify pathnames with / or
   switches with -.
-- 
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101
UUCP:  ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp                    ESL: 62832882
INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP   TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD