Glenn Gilbreath Jr. wrote: > > I just hate to see the talk sink to the level of "My OS is > better than yours 'cause I can do XYZ and you can only ABC"
You've misunderstood the situation. We are engaged in a scripting competition (using only the commands contained within the shell). So far, the only solutions presented are for the bash shell. We are challenging the users of command.com (and other shells) to join it. Here is the challenge: ---------------------- There is an executable file somewhere on your harddrive. It is in the path (assume there are several directories in that path). You need to write a script (batch file) that inputs the simple name of the executable and outputs the full path name. For example, let's say your DOS batch file is called findit.bat. You enter the following: ---------- findit mem ---------- and then your batch file prints this (and only this): -------------------------- C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\MEM.EXE -------------------------- > ...You can do similar routines in DOS, using IF EXIST and > IF NOT EXIST, variations can be done to search the entire > path, Good. Let's see the batch file. I'd like to try it on my DOS system. > The problem for DOS anyhow, is the availability of really > small, easy-to-use utilities which do all of this for you, That's why we have restricted the competition to built-in commands only. > the question then becomes "Do we need to re-invent the > wheel, when we already have high quality tools?". This is just for fun. Our scripts have no practical utility (other than honing our minds). BTW, shell scripting is very suitable for survPCs. Even a humble 386sx16 with 4meg RAM can have a ton of fun doing bash scripting. Cheers, Steven ____________________________________________________ Linux for old PCs: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~ichi To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
