🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <90184.125712JXS118@psuvm.psu.edu>, JXS118@psuvm.psu.edu
(Jeff Siegel, Op from Atherton Hall) writes:

[...]

> Anyway, I know you can invoke 1 program simply by doing
> 
> shell=progname
> 
> in Dos versions 3.X on up. I bet doing:
> 
> Shell=prog1
> Shell=prog2
> Shell=command.com ...
> 
> will work (as long as prog1 and prog2 terminate normally, but I can't swear
> to it.) If it does work, Its a lot simpler than some other things mentioned.
> 
> Jeff

I'm tired of these perfectly useless postings!

I wonder if you realise the number of people that will actually have to read
your message?  If you did, you would (I hope) avoid to publish your misunder-
standing of the meaning of the posting you were `following up' to, as well as
your wild guesses of `possiblie solutions'!

Your readers will fall into at least two categories:

1) those who will know that you don't know what you're talking about (they
   should simply skip your posting),
2) those who will think ``hey, that's a good thing to know!'' (before seeing
   your magnificient `... but I can't swear to it', that is.)  The day they
   will try to use your beautiful `undocumented feature', they will find out
   it doesn't work.

To both categories, your message has been useless and time-consuming.

As it turns out, you don't ``invoke'' a programm with `shell', you simply tell
what you want to execute *after* config' is done.  Guess you've lost your bet
(what do I win? :-)  (BTW: what is the `install' (DOS 4.0) command for?)

My point is simple enough:  Why didn't YOU try your `solution' before making
a fool of yourself worldwide?  Don't you understand that you're saying as much
as ``try the command `set PRN=filename' to redirect printer output to a file!
I bet it works (but I can't swear to it.)  If it does work, it's a lot simpler
than some other things mentioned.''

Sorry, bad mood today.


Markus Fischer     ---       fisher@sc2a.unige.ch or fisher@cgeuge52.bitnet