12.02.2011 - 01:06
Abhor, Retch, Ignite?
must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me where
Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings. I'd like to
put a beep in an error which scrolls off my screen too fast.
I couldn't find the error string in cmd.exe, even seaching for it as
Unicode. io.sys is empty. I found it in command.com, but editing it
there had no effect.
Jimmy
12.02.2011 - 05:19
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:02 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?". This
must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me where
Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings. I'd like to
put a beep in an error which scrolls off my screen too fast.
I couldn't find the error string in cmd.exe, even seaching for it as
Unicode. io.sys is empty. I found it in command.com, but editing it
there had no effect.
Find all copies of command.com, there may be more than 1.
Also try rebooting.
Also try "cmd.exe".
Jimmy
--
ArarghMail101 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?". This
must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me where
Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings. I'd like to
put a beep in an error which scrolls off my screen too fast.
I couldn't find the error string in cmd.exe, even seaching for it as
Unicode. io.sys is empty. I found it in command.com, but editing it
there had no effect.
Find all copies of command.com, there may be more than 1.
Also try rebooting.
Also try "cmd.exe".
Jimmy
--
ArarghMail101 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
17.02.2011 - 14:23
ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:02 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?". This
must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me where
Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings.
Are you really referring to the command.com in XP? That's a very
stripped-down version of the real-mode DOS shell (doesn't even have
some of the features from Win98), and is essentially useless except
for running some old DOS executables and batch scripts that invoke
command.com by name.
People who are talking about the XP command shell are almost always
referring to cmd.exe, which is the NT shell and has nothing to do with
DOS (other than certain historical similarities).
I'd like to
put a beep in an error which scrolls off my screen too fast.
I couldn't find the error string in cmd.exe, even seaching for it as
Unicode. io.sys is empty. I found it in command.com, but editing it
there had no effect.
Find all copies of command.com, there may be more than 1.
Irrelevant, if we're actually talking about the XP command shell.
Also try "cmd.exe".
He already did, according to the original post.
I believe cmd.exe is localized (note that it loads locale.nls, for
example), so you may need to find the message resources for your
language (probably US English). I have no idea where cmd.exe might
keep message resources, though; they don't appear to be stored as PE
resources in the executable, and I wasn't able to find them in a quick
search through likely DLLs.
Jimmy could always try something like:
findstr /s /i /m /r "abort.*retry" %WINDIR%\* > %TEMP%\ar_files.txt
to get a list of all the files that have a string containing "abort"
and "retry" (case-insensitive) under the Windows installation
directory. That would narrow the search - if the string in question is
indeed in a file in the Windows tree.
This is not likely to work in any case, though, because System Restore
will try to prevent you from making any permanent changes to system
files. And if you have that disabled, a later Windows Update may blow
your change away.
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:02 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?". This
must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me where
Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings.
Are you really referring to the command.com in XP? That's a very
stripped-down version of the real-mode DOS shell (doesn't even have
some of the features from Win98), and is essentially useless except
for running some old DOS executables and batch scripts that invoke
command.com by name.
People who are talking about the XP command shell are almost always
referring to cmd.exe, which is the NT shell and has nothing to do with
DOS (other than certain historical similarities).
I'd like to
put a beep in an error which scrolls off my screen too fast.
I couldn't find the error string in cmd.exe, even seaching for it as
Unicode. io.sys is empty. I found it in command.com, but editing it
there had no effect.
Find all copies of command.com, there may be more than 1.
Irrelevant, if we're actually talking about the XP command shell.
Also try "cmd.exe".
He already did, according to the original post.
I believe cmd.exe is localized (note that it loads locale.nls, for
example), so you may need to find the message resources for your
language (probably US English). I have no idea where cmd.exe might
keep message resources, though; they don't appear to be stored as PE
resources in the executable, and I wasn't able to find them in a quick
search through likely DLLs.
Jimmy could always try something like:
findstr /s /i /m /r "abort.*retry" %WINDIR%\* > %TEMP%\ar_files.txt
to get a list of all the files that have a string containing "abort"
and "retry" (case-insensitive) under the Windows installation
directory. That would narrow the search - if the string in question is
indeed in a file in the Windows tree.
This is not likely to work in any case, though, because System Restore
will try to prevent you from making any permanent changes to system
files. And if you have that disabled, a later Windows Update may blow
your change away.
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
17.02.2011 - 17:41
In article <ijj91n01l6k@news6.newsguy.com>, mwojcik@newsguy.com
(Michael Wojcik) writes:
ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:02 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?".
This must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me
where Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings.
Are you really referring to the command.com in XP? That's a very
stripped-down version of the real-mode DOS shell (doesn't even have
some of the features from Win98), and is essentially useless except
for running some old DOS executables and batch scripts that invoke
command.com by name.
People who are talking about the XP command shell are almost always
referring to cmd.exe, which is the NT shell and has nothing to do
with DOS (other than certain historical similarities).
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of
that is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're
planning that sort of surgery you're probably better off using
some sort of third-party shell.
[1] "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity." [2]
[2] A little voice in the back of my mind keeps saying,
"But Microsoft isn't stupid!"
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
(Michael Wojcik) writes:
ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:02 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?".
This must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me
where Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings.
Are you really referring to the command.com in XP? That's a very
stripped-down version of the real-mode DOS shell (doesn't even have
some of the features from Win98), and is essentially useless except
for running some old DOS executables and batch scripts that invoke
command.com by name.
People who are talking about the XP command shell are almost always
referring to cmd.exe, which is the NT shell and has nothing to do
with DOS (other than certain historical similarities).
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of
that is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're
planning that sort of surgery you're probably better off using
some sort of third-party shell.
[1] "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity." [2]
[2] A little voice in the back of my mind keeps saying,
"But Microsoft isn't stupid!"
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
17.02.2011 - 18:06
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
[1] "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity." [2]
[2] A little voice in the back of my mind keeps saying,
"But Microsoft isn't stupid!"
at m'soft developers conference (MDC) spring '96 held at (sanfran)
Moscone convention center ... some number of m'softers were saying that
year was major turning point.
up until then, people would get the latest release (every year or more
often) because it would have new function that they needed. turning
point approx '96 was that 95% of the people had 95% percent of what they
used. it was time to switch to new marketing campaign similar to new
cars in the 60s ... somehow convince people to buy a new one whether
they needed it or not.
even tho the software was "purchased" ... the business had been similar
to IBM's hardware lease business (prior to early 70s when most machines
were converted to lease) ... aka dependable regular revenue stream (from
lease business). When people start keeping their cars for 5-10 yrs
... it has big downside on the annual revenue stream (compared to
everybody getting a new one every year).
the industry has been especially accused of maintaining a broken PC
security paradigm in order to keep up that part of the regular annual
revenue stream.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
18.02.2011 - 00:18
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:23:54 -0500, Michael Wojcik
<mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:02 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?". This
must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me where
Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings.
Are you really referring to the command.com in XP? That's a very
stripped-down version of the real-mode DOS shell (doesn't even have
some of the features from Win98), and is essentially useless except
for running some old DOS executables and batch scripts that invoke
command.com by name.
In NT4, command.com has internal identification as being from ms-dos
5.0. I don't have XP running, so I can't look.
People who are talking about the XP command shell are almost always
referring to cmd.exe, which is the NT shell and has nothing to do with
DOS (other than certain historical similarities).
I'd like to
put a beep in an error which scrolls off my screen too fast.
I couldn't find the error string in cmd.exe, even seaching for it as
Unicode. io.sys is empty. I found it in command.com, but editing it
there had no effect.
Find all copies of command.com, there may be more than 1.
Irrelevant, if we're actually talking about the XP command shell.
Also try "cmd.exe".
He already did, according to the original post.
I missed seeing that when I first read his post. :-(
I believe cmd.exe is localized (note that it loads locale.nls, for
example), so you may need to find the message resources for your
language (probably US English). I have no idea where cmd.exe might
keep message resources, though; they don't appear to be stored as PE
resources in the executable, and I wasn't able to find them in a quick
search through likely DLLs.
Jimmy could always try something like:
findstr /s /i /m /r "abort.*retry" %WINDIR%\* > %TEMP%\ar_files.txt
to get a list of all the files that have a string containing "abort"
and "retry" (case-insensitive) under the Windows installation
directory. That would narrow the search - if the string in question is
indeed in a file in the Windows tree.
This is not likely to work in any case, though, because System Restore
will try to prevent you from making any permanent changes to system
files. And if you have that disabled, a later Windows Update may blow
your change away.
--
ArarghMail101 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
<mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:02 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Google knows nothing about the phrase, "Abhor, Retch, Ignite?". This
must be rectified.
Also, it would make my life slightly easier if someone told me where
Windows XP's DOS command shell stores its error strings.
Are you really referring to the command.com in XP? That's a very
stripped-down version of the real-mode DOS shell (doesn't even have
some of the features from Win98), and is essentially useless except
for running some old DOS executables and batch scripts that invoke
command.com by name.
In NT4, command.com has internal identification as being from ms-dos
5.0. I don't have XP running, so I can't look.
People who are talking about the XP command shell are almost always
referring to cmd.exe, which is the NT shell and has nothing to do with
DOS (other than certain historical similarities).
I'd like to
put a beep in an error which scrolls off my screen too fast.
I couldn't find the error string in cmd.exe, even seaching for it as
Unicode. io.sys is empty. I found it in command.com, but editing it
there had no effect.
Find all copies of command.com, there may be more than 1.
Irrelevant, if we're actually talking about the XP command shell.
Also try "cmd.exe".
He already did, according to the original post.
I missed seeing that when I first read his post. :-(
I believe cmd.exe is localized (note that it loads locale.nls, for
example), so you may need to find the message resources for your
language (probably US English). I have no idea where cmd.exe might
keep message resources, though; they don't appear to be stored as PE
resources in the executable, and I wasn't able to find them in a quick
search through likely DLLs.
Jimmy could always try something like:
findstr /s /i /m /r "abort.*retry" %WINDIR%\* > %TEMP%\ar_files.txt
to get a list of all the files that have a string containing "abort"
and "retry" (case-insensitive) under the Windows installation
directory. That would narrow the search - if the string in question is
indeed in a file in the Windows tree.
This is not likely to work in any case, though, because System Restore
will try to prevent you from making any permanent changes to system
files. And if you have that disabled, a later Windows Update may blow
your change away.
--
ArarghMail101 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
18.02.2011 - 06:16
On 2011-02-17, ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com
<ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote:
In NT4, command.com has internal identification as being from ms-dos
5.0. I don't have XP running, so I can't look.
Actually I think it's reported as 5.50 by the "get version" interrupt for DOS
programs running under NT(>) or XP.
--
Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.
<ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote:
In NT4, command.com has internal identification as being from ms-dos
5.0. I don't have XP running, so I can't look.
Actually I think it's reported as 5.50 by the "get version" interrupt for DOS
programs running under NT(>) or XP.
--
Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.
18.02.2011 - 15:21
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of
that is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're
planning that sort of surgery you're probably better off using
some sort of third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for
precisely this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of
that is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're
planning that sort of surgery you're probably better off using
some sort of third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for
precisely this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
18.02.2011 - 18:19
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:16:30 -0500, Bill Marcum <bill@lat.localnet>
wrote:
On 2011-02-17, ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com
<ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote:
In NT4, command.com has internal identification as being from ms-dos
5.0. I don't have XP running, so I can't look.
Actually I think it's reported as 5.50 by the "get version" interrupt for DOS
programs running under NT(>) or XP.
Maybe for NT(>4), but for NT() it returns 5.00
--
ArarghMail101 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
wrote:
On 2011-02-17, ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com
<ArarghMail101NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote:
In NT4, command.com has internal identification as being from ms-dos
5.0. I don't have XP running, so I can't look.
Actually I think it's reported as 5.50 by the "get version" interrupt for DOS
programs running under NT(>) or XP.
Maybe for NT(>4), but for NT() it returns 5.00
--
ArarghMail101 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
19.02.2011 - 08:22
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:21:20 -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of that
is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're planning
that sort of surgery you're probably better off using some sort of
third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for precisely
this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
No kidding -- there's something usable? I'll have to give it a try.
(I recently, somewhat against my better judgment, left WinXP SP3 in place
for dual booting when I installed Linux on a perfectly good 8-year-old
computer that I was kindly permitted to haul away when I helped a friend
replace it in his home office with a near-clone of the shiny new Dell
that his POE had placed on his desk at work. I figure that if I ever get
in a total wedge where I absolutely have to run a Win32 binary to update
some bit of firmware on an obscure old piece of hardware or something, I
may as well hang onto an installation that will do it natively,
distasteful as that may be, and next to no harm done because someone else
paid the Microsoft Tax on it already.)
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of that
is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're planning
that sort of surgery you're probably better off using some sort of
third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for precisely
this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
No kidding -- there's something usable? I'll have to give it a try.
(I recently, somewhat against my better judgment, left WinXP SP3 in place
for dual booting when I installed Linux on a perfectly good 8-year-old
computer that I was kindly permitted to haul away when I helped a friend
replace it in his home office with a near-clone of the shiny new Dell
that his POE had placed on his desk at work. I figure that if I ever get
in a total wedge where I absolutely have to run a Win32 binary to update
some bit of firmware on an obscure old piece of hardware or something, I
may as well hang onto an installation that will do it natively,
distasteful as that may be, and next to no harm done because someone else
paid the Microsoft Tax on it already.)
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
19.02.2011 - 17:44
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:09:19 -0500, Joe Morris wrote:
"Roland Hutchinson" <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of that
is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're planning
that sort of surgery you're probably better off using some sort of
third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for
precisely this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
No kidding -- there's something usable? I'll have to give it a try.
A quick-and-dirty description of PowerShell is that it makes .NET
available to the script writer. The concepts aren't too different from
those of VBScript. And if you need a native PowerShell command that
isn't part of the product you can write your own.
Two years ago the 6-day SANS Institute class on securing Windows Server
switched the last day's content from teaching VBScript to PowerShell.
To me one of the significant features of PowerShell over CMD scripts is
that it allows interaction with executables far more completely than the
quite awkward (and fragile) _FOR_ command could ever dream of.
Powershell version 2 was introduced with Windows 7 and Server 2008R2; V2
is also available for XP, Server 2003, and later flavors. On systems
where it's not part of the base product Windows Update will offer it to
you or you can download it from Microsoft's web site.
The language isn't particularly intuitive. A number of good books are
available; I'll recommend _Windows Powershell In Practice_ (Richard
Siddaway, Manning Publications), and a new book due out next week,
_Windows Powershell in Action_ (Bruce Payette, Manning Pulications).
There's also the inevitable O'Reilly book, _Powershell Cookbook_. (You
might get a good deal on one or more of these if you've got a Borders
bookstore closing near you.)
Powershell isn't a panacea for all the ills of a system but it's got a
number of nice features that makes it worth adding to your toolchest.
Thanks. Probably much more information than I need at present, but I
shall file it away for future reference, with gratitude.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
"Roland Hutchinson" <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of that
is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're planning
that sort of surgery you're probably better off using some sort of
third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for
precisely this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
No kidding -- there's something usable? I'll have to give it a try.
A quick-and-dirty description of PowerShell is that it makes .NET
available to the script writer. The concepts aren't too different from
those of VBScript. And if you need a native PowerShell command that
isn't part of the product you can write your own.
Two years ago the 6-day SANS Institute class on securing Windows Server
switched the last day's content from teaching VBScript to PowerShell.
To me one of the significant features of PowerShell over CMD scripts is
that it allows interaction with executables far more completely than the
quite awkward (and fragile) _FOR_ command could ever dream of.
Powershell version 2 was introduced with Windows 7 and Server 2008R2; V2
is also available for XP, Server 2003, and later flavors. On systems
where it's not part of the base product Windows Update will offer it to
you or you can download it from Microsoft's web site.
The language isn't particularly intuitive. A number of good books are
available; I'll recommend _Windows Powershell In Practice_ (Richard
Siddaway, Manning Publications), and a new book due out next week,
_Windows Powershell in Action_ (Bruce Payette, Manning Pulications).
There's also the inevitable O'Reilly book, _Powershell Cookbook_. (You
might get a good deal on one or more of these if you've got a Borders
bookstore closing near you.)
Powershell isn't a panacea for all the ills of a system but it's got a
number of nice features that makes it worth adding to your toolchest.
Thanks. Probably much more information than I need at present, but I
shall file it away for future reference, with gratitude.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
22.02.2011 - 17:40
Roland Hutchinson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:21:20 -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of that
is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're planning
that sort of surgery you're probably better off using some sort of
third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for precisely
this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
No kidding -- there's something usable? I'll have to give it a try.
Powershell is certainly more powerful and less broken than cmd. How
suitable it is as a shell for everyday tasks is mostly a question of
taste. It's really an object-oriented scripting environment with an
interactive interface.
For normal use on Windows, I just install Cygwin and use bash. It has
some glitches[1] but generally works pretty well, and you can
configure it to be more or less Windows-like (eg making filename
completion case-insensitive) as you prefer.
[1] Particularly, in my experience, on 64-bit Windows versions, where
it sometimes gets confused by the behind-the-scenes maneuvering
Windows does to support both 64- and 32-bit apps. For example, you
can't run Microsoft's ldp LDAP client from a bash prompt unless you
launch it with cmd ("cmd /c ldp").
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:21:20 -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Both command.com and cmd.exe are badly broken; I suspect much of that
is by design, Hanlon's Razor [1] notwithstanding. If you're planning
that sort of surgery you're probably better off using some sort of
third-party shell.
Or Powershell, which comes with some versions of Windows and is
available free for others, and which Microsoft introduced for precisely
this reason (ie, cmd.exe is not fixable).
No kidding -- there's something usable? I'll have to give it a try.
Powershell is certainly more powerful and less broken than cmd. How
suitable it is as a shell for everyday tasks is mostly a question of
taste. It's really an object-oriented scripting environment with an
interactive interface.
For normal use on Windows, I just install Cygwin and use bash. It has
some glitches[1] but generally works pretty well, and you can
configure it to be more or less Windows-like (eg making filename
completion case-insensitive) as you prefer.
[1] Particularly, in my experience, on 64-bit Windows versions, where
it sometimes gets confused by the behind-the-scenes maneuvering
Windows does to support both 64- and 32-bit apps. For example, you
can't run Microsoft's ldp LDAP client from a bash prompt unless you
launch it with cmd ("cmd /c ldp").
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
Ähnliche Themen
Occupy Oakland recreated the society that they abhor
06.11.2011 - 15:45 - Posts: 3
Obama, NASA and "Muslim outreach" <gag / retch / hurl>
22.09.2010 - 22:33 - Posts: 5
Frank Retch (Shitlicker) Gets Buster-BUSTED For Lying!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
29.04.2011 - 03:07 - Posts: 1
Frank Retch (Shitlicker) Gets Buster-BUSTED For Lying, Again!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
29.04.2011 - 06:28 - Posts: 1
The ironic controversy over RETARD-RETARDs-RETARDed-RETARDnation; the word falls in between "retaliate" & "retch" (i.e.; Palin & Rush)
04.02.2010 - 17:18 - Posts: 1
Ignite
01.01.2012 - 14:23 - Posts: 14
Sex over 40+ *Ignite in F
27.04.2011 - 18:34 - Posts: 2
More
Search
