TCSH on Windows XP?

An unfortunete XP user... asks: "I find myself having to use a Windows XP Pro machine at work, but I want to convience of tcsh... command.com just doesn't cut it for what I am doing. Has anyone ported a *NIX shell (csh, tcsh, or even sh) to Windows XP Pro?" How well does Cygwin handle the Windows XP environment?

Comments

the obvious answer?

[rehannan]

How well does Cygwin handle the Windows XP environment?

Why not just install the Cygwin tools and find out?

let not even try now shall we??

[forehead]

Hmmm. www.cygwin.com:

The Cygwin DLL works with all non-beta versions of Windows since Windows 95, with the exception of Windows CE.

Hmmm. www.cygwin.com/xfree: (first link returned by a friggen google search).

Cygwin/XFree86 is a port of XFree86 to the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems. Cygwin/XFree86 runs on all recent consumer and business versions of Windows; as of 2002-01-06 those versions are specifically Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, and Windows XP.

Cygwin works great on NT 5

[PhaseBurn]

I use it daily on Win2k pro... no problems at all... I'm actually working on compiling gnome under it... have XFree86 working great... presumably it should work just as well under NT 5.1 (XP) but having never had the horror of using XP, I can't speak for what it does right... so far, I haven't found a thing :-)

I use bash personally in my cygwin enviornment, and am quite happy with it.

keep a Linux Box on the net

[BroadbandBradley]

and just use WinXP to login to Linux.

or you could try DemoLinux, which will boot and run from the CDrom.

either solution may piss off your IT department though.

How about BASH?

[TTop]

you can do bash in cygwin.

Re:How about BASH?

[babbage]

You can do bash or tcsh in cygwin (along with, I suppose, a few hundred other things) (not all shells, of course). If this guy wants to use tcsh, no problem, he can have it.
Bash is great, I agree, but it isn't the only good shell out there. Tcsh is a great choice too :)

tcsh

[belg4mit]

ftp://ftp.blarg.net/users/amol/tcsh/

though I'm sure google could have turned it up.

Re:tcsh

[cooldev]

Another option -- and I can't recommend this highly enough -- is eshell for emacs. It's the best interactive shell I have ever used (by a long shot, and I've used many), and it's especially nice on NT/Win2k/XP because emacs is an infintely better terminal environment than the standard command windows you have to run cmd, tcsh, or bash in.

Eshell is so good that I can see myself giving up emacs as an editor and keeping it for the shell. And that's saying something.

The above port of tcsh would be my next choice, followed by Cygwin's bash. You'll want Cygwin so you can have the full set of commands under eshell anyway, but bash isn't as well integrated with Windows as eshell and the tcsh port.

keep a Linux Box on your desktop!

[knabar]

VMware works fine on XP as well... Windows complains at the installation because of some uncertified virtual network card drivers, but it works anyway. And it is cheaper (unless you have an additional box anyway), even if you need to buy additional memory.

Well, tabby

[seann]

This is more of a hint than a full fledged tcsh.

You know how you can transverse directory in almost every shell in Linux and Unix by using tab?
Well in Windows XP (And maybe others) you can do this too.

However, you have to use cmd.exe and not command.com, and you can happly cd \wi\sys\inf\\\\\
This gets me by.. for now.

Re:Well, tabby

[Anonymous Coward]

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\CompletionChar is the reg key to set what key stroke triggers filename completion under the NT based OSs.

Re:Well, tabby

[rehannan]

Works in Win2k also. I set it in TweakUI (under the "cmd" tab).

Re:Well, tabby

[Geeky]

And NT 4.0 - there's a registry setting, IIRC.

Re:Well, tabby

[seann]

It works out of the box in Windows XP Professional. Which is kind of cool.

Re:Well, tabby

[zango]

go thru the following
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Co mmand Processor
in regedit (or some other registry editor)
and set the "Completion Char" key to 9 (for Tab)

presto... next cmd session, u have "Tab" completion !!!

Re:the obvious answer is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of "why"s:

- maybe he's asking because he hasn't the time to check and someone could kindly explain instead of ... you know;

- every person has a different experience -- it is useful to have feedback from each one and build a database;

- maybe he's actually trying to meet people with the same interests and not just get the package;

- that question, being at the end, could indicate he'd rather try something else and asked the question "en passant".

Obvious. Yeah, right. Remind me of decided people... quick decision == bullshit.

Cygwin or 4NT?

[Chelloveck]

Cygwin's bash runs passably well. However, I can't really recommend cygwin due to the basic conflicts between Unix and Windows conventions. Most Unixes have case-sensitive filenames, for instance, but Windows doesn't. And there's no clean mapping of Unix permissions to NTFS ACLs. Cygwin's nice, and I keep it around for a few things, but personally I get frustrated when I run up against things that are almost but not quite like they should be.

On the other hand, if you're just looking for a decent command shell for Windows, you can't do much better than 4NT from JP Software. 4NT is compatible with 'cmd.exe', yet adds a whole bunch of features reminiscent of a good Unix shell. I've been a big fan of 4DOS/4NT for quite a few years.

Oh, and don't forget to download Perl, Python and/or Tcl from ActiveState.

Re:Cygwin or 4NT?

[quinto2000]

here here. I loved this program to death.

Eventually I gave up and switched to Linux, but a command shell + gui makes you very speedy. However, I don't know why anyone would install Cygwin just to run a shell. It's nice to have the free x-server, but I've found that it's slower to start than 4NT, and not much more useful if all you want is a commandline.

Re:Cygwin or 4NT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where, where?

I think you probably meant to say "hear, hear".

Re:Cygwin or 4NT?

[argel]

Most Unixes have case-sensitive filenames, for instance, but Windows

Actually, the NTFS filesystem is case-sensitive. I think it has to be for POSIX compliance though I am not sure that is the reason support for it was built-in. But you are correct -- Windows encapsulates that into the perception of case-insensitivity.

tcsh is in Cygwin

[Spock the Vulcan]

If you look here, you'll find all the software that Cygwin offers. This includes shells like ash, bash, and yes, tcsh. It also includes all development libraries, so you shouldn't have any trouble compiling something else like zsh either.

The Right Tool For The Job

[ONOIML8]

First off I have to say that seeing "Windows XP" and "Pro" on the same line gives me fits of laughter. Then again I'm strange.

But I wonder about why you think you have to use that particular OS at work? If tcsh is the tool you're most comfortable with, and does the job for you, then maybe Windows XP is not the right tool for the job.

I think about my employer expecting me to maintain a vehicle but the only sockets they would provide me with are S.A.E. Most equipment these days includes metric fasteners. It would be difficult to do my job, maybe impossible. You have to have the right tools.

If your employer can't or won't provide you with the proper tools for the job, it's time to start looking for an employer who will.

Re:The Right Tool For The Job

[Ratface]

While I think there's a certain logic in your answer, I however find myself wondering whether you haven't missed a point. Perhaps there is a very good reason why at that company they use this particular OS (though I admit the reason probably has more to do with convenience). In such a case, perhaps XP *is* the right tool for the job. In such a case, isn't it the technician's responsibility to ensure that they know how to use the tool?
In the example of socket wrenches, you *know* how to use either S.A.E or metric, but one is extremely unsuited to the job. In the case of an OS, they almost certainly can both perform the task equally well, but have different styles of usage. If I am responsible for an IT department, am I going to make an exception in standards for a single person because they can't be bothered to use the tools provided??

(OK, I am mostly playing devils advocate here, but your argument won't always hold water).

Re:The Right Tool For The Job

[ONOIML8]

I agree that the arguement won't hold water all the time. And a lot of it depends on just what this guy is doing with his system.

But my management training tells me that I also need to look at what tools not only will do the job, but which of those tools the employee is most comfortable with. The comfort level is going to be one factor in productivity.

Interesting that my reply has been modded down as offtopic. Wasn't the origional posts topic about choosing a tool for a job?

Re:The Right Tool For The Job

[Anonymous Coward]

>If your employer can't or won't provide you with
>the proper tools for the job, it's time to start
>looking for an employer who will.

Which job market are YOU in?

It's not 1999 anymore. It's not as easy as just walking across the street to get another job these days.

Unless you're walking from 7-11 to Stop'n'Go.

MS Visual Studio.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote a small wrapper program in C# to convert POSIX calls in pdksh (should work for tcsh too). This was very easy using The Visual Studio ADO feature; it would have required tedious hand-coding otherwise (but it is possible, although you might want to invest in a Perl script to help you out...)

Cygwin Performance under XP

[agrounds]

Cygwin works just fine in XP. I use it daily both at home and at work. The TCSH works well also. I prefer to use BASH myself, but to each his own. Just be sure to select *all* the packages to install them during setup. Yes. This means you have to click the mouse to a version number over and over and over again. Then after the post-install scripts finish running, run setup again to get all the version updates. It sounds silly, but after mass installing this thing, I've found it to be reliable. Also, keep a copy of the setup.exe in the root of the cygwin directory, since you just have to double click it and select a mirror to check and upgrade all your packages.

To gain access to your windows drives under the cygwin shell, just map a link to the drives like this:

ln -s /cygdrive/c/ windows

ln -s /cygdrive/d/ d-drive

That's it! Enjoy!

Re:Cygwin Performance under XP

[Anonymous Coward]

To gain access to your windows drives under the cygwin shell, just map a link to the drives like this:

Not needed, you can use 'a:' 'b:'... in cygwin. So if you want to copy a file to a floppy, for example, you can do this: 'cp foo.txt a:'. Like wise you can change to d: using 'cd d:'.

Enjoy.

linux and supported unix environments

[mattcoarr]

I personally have my laptop dual booting between w2k and linux and use cygwin very heavily while in the windows world.

However, with the release and popularity of Mac OS X that may be a viable avenue for moving unix onto the desktop. (I believe the default terminal shell on OS X is bash :-)

With the addition XonX it can even work with other unix boxen. And the interface looks really cool!!! A bsd-like environment with an outstanding interface.

Let's face it. It will be 2-3 years before linux might become viable on an average user's desktop, not to mention persuading upper management. For now linux and bsd will probably remain on the developers' and advocates' desks.

The Mac culture and commercial support is very well established. The linux, bsd, and mac communities have a lot to gain from cooperation and shared experiences.

Now if they would only ship macs with 3+ button mice . . .

Re:linux and supported unix environments

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think tcsh is the default in OS X, you have to add bash yourself if you want it. As far as the 3 button mouse, its a small price to pay compared to the cost of the rest of the system. It would be nice if they made it an option though, even if they defaulted to a 1 button mouse on orders.

Re:linux and supported unix environments

[ScumBiker]

The default shell on Mac OS X is tcsh. At least on mine it is.

Re:linux and supported unix environments

[PythonOrRuby]

As it is on all Mac OS X machines(unless things are different for Server, but I doubt it).

Bash is easily insalled via Fink, though.

Re:linux and supported unix environments

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you fucking shit heads give it up already. OK you like 0S X good for fucking you. The guy asks about using tcsh in Windows and another mac lamer *has to* say Macs run Unix now! Fuck off already. These stupid Macs run Unix posts are becoming as popular as goat sex posts. If you want to use OS X, then do so, but for the love of God keep it to yourself.

--Insane Ranter

Re:linux and supported unix environments

[The Pi-Guy]

No, default OSX shell is CSH, AFAIK.

By the way, has anyone checked out MudSH? That's pretty cool. There's a demo of it running on Char.TV's telnet server.

--jw

Re:linux and supported unix environments

[kernalklink]

tcsh is the default shell in Mac OS X:

PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
629 top 8.9% 0:01.56 1 14 14 200K 308K 440K 1.37M
618 tcsh 0.0% 0:00.18 1 24 16 500K 636K 968K 5.76M

cygwin and mkstools

[skelley]

I recently downloaded the newest version of Cygwin (albeit on Win2k) and I was quite impressed with how far along it has come. Many many programs ported to it (virtually anything you could want). The only issues are really Windows issues that are more or less intractable.
I have also had good luck in the past with the MKS toolkit. See here.

Re:the obvious answer is wrong

[RevAaron]

- maybe he's actually trying to meet people with the same interests and not just get the package;


Heh. That's stretching it. I can just see it, in the personal ads in the back of PC USER mag-

TCSH ME BABY
WinXP user seeks
another person for
leather, chains and
tcsh. Inquire within.
Huhuh. Get it? I'll
inquire within you.

Maybe the lack of such personal ads in computer rags is why we get so many self-explanatory questions here on slashdot?

unixutil

[SpaceLifeForm]

No need for cygwin.
Find unixutil here.

Sure you can..

[stevey]

If you take a look at GNUSoftware.com you'll find tons of Unix software for Windows.

To answer your question, specifically, though here's the page for Unix shells, where you have the choice of Bash, Tcsh, and ZSh

cygwin and fluxbox

[mike13down]

cygwin works everyday to remote X to my server. X -query .

Or you could install fluxbox, It compiles on cygwin and it makes a purty interface.

Google for "zsh win32"

[costas]

There is a native Zsh port for win32 that works very nicely (case insensitivity, path translation, etc) and doesn't require Cygwin. Zsh itself is more powerful than tcsh and although it's a sh-like shell (in the family of ksh and bash) it has lots of c/tcsh-like feature to help ease the transition.

Re:Google for "zsh win32"

[Cy Guy]

There is a native Zsh port for win32 that works very nicely

You can read more about it here. You can get it by FTP from ftp://ftp.blarg.net/users/amol/zsh But you will need a gzip decompressor.

Korn shell

[rm-r]

Personally I can't stand the Cshell, if you're into Korn (the shell not the band!) you could do a lot worse than getting work to buy the MKS Toolkit, it also comes with a load of other unixalike tools

MS Services for Unix

[gruntvald]

Try the Services For Unix from Microsoft, (formerly NT-SUX) it's a rebundled MKS toolkit. I've tried the GNU tools and they stopped working right in W2K, and are now currently unavailable, while being re-prepared. If you want non-commercial, Cygwin is the way to go, but I think the MKS stuff is pretty comprehensive.

Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a real lame unix user if you think the only advantage of tcsh over cmd.exe is the stupid tab autocompletion...

u suck.

Kornshell

[duffbeer703]

Go to www.kornshell.com and download the source and compile. The Korn shell will then function as a drop-in replacement for cmd.exe.

There are also dozens of commercial Unix shells, including TCSH available in native NT binary form.

Re:the obvious answer is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

>> so many self-explanatory questions here

!

There you go again... are you an engineer? 8o)

Re:tcsh - try emacs + eshell

[krashish]

I would also suggest eshell. Been using for a little while now and it kicks.

BTW- I'm running emacs & eshell on XP with absolutly no problems.

-krashish

what the fuck?

[Wakko Warner]

Does anyone here know how to use google?

Re:what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

no

simple

[Anonymous Coward]

echo dir %1 > ls.bat
echo copy %1 %2 > cp.bat
echo move %1 %2 > mv.bat

etc...

Cyngus & Emacs XOR Java

[DaitanGio]

You can use emacs inside cygnus.
I launch emacs from cygnus: I got a fair environment,
and I can compile/dev unix code.
Cygnus has some problems, but for small task you
can try this solution...
Another Javaized option is Beanshell

Re:what the flip?

[biglig2]

Hah, followed the google link and this thread is at the top ;-)

CMD not command.com

[killerfocus]

the NT/2000/XP environment provide command.com for backwards compatibility. If you are actually using the command-line, you will want to use cmd. cmd provides long filename support, tab completion, etc. just launch cmd from the run-line instead of command.

qmail-maildir-daemontools howto