My original point was that Windows console is more of an afterthought than a powerful system for accomplishing tasks.
Yes, it is an afterthought, but it's also useful. More command line tools can be had here.
As far as the \Device\Network0, ipconfig doesn't seem to take that as an input on my box. A consistent naming convention for nics doesn't exist, in a gui world it doesn't have to.
ipconfig uses the 'long name' for network connections. The normal naming convention for those is "Local Area Connection 1". You can change it in the network control panel by selecting the connection, then File->Rename. Rename it to eth0 if you want. Use the long name of the adapter, including wildcards, as a parameter to ipconfig to show only those adapters. eg: ipconfig eth0
I have 2 books on the registry, one out of date one from MS Press and one from O'Reilly for Win2k Registry. They both point to these three points in making the registry:
1) The registry was made to provide a single place to store data (ie a single point of failure)
2) The registry was created to be harder to edit (ini files were easy to edit, and users would screw themselves over all the time)
3) The registry was to have a defined hierarchy
Personally, I find the registry easy to read and use. I like having a single organized place for all config info. With tools like regmon its also easier to track individual changes than with various text files. Its possible that MS wanted some stability through settings obscurity, but I still find it hard to believe that it is a major reason.
So instead of/dev/blah I get {53B6AA67-3F56-11D0-916B-00AA00C18068}, great. If my machine gets screwed I'll have a jolly old time calling someone trying to tell them {53B6AA67-3F56-11D0-916B-00AA00C18068} (or something like it) over the phone. The registry should be easier than this...
Most things that have GUIDs also have a text name associated with them in the registry. Have them search for that name. Devices using them is pretty rare though. I wouldn't suggest debugging COM references over a phone line. Also, this isn't an inherant flaw of the registry, but how it is used.
Once again an afterthought. You yourself couldn't find something as common or simple as cut. Besides, most of these can't do everything you can do in the GUI, some don't even come close such as cacls. Don't even act like I'm making this shit up, even the MS group that converted Hotmail acknowledged this, why won't you Mr. Fanboy?
I don't think you are making anything up. I also agree that Windows has much weaker command line support than Unix. If you wanted Unix commands, there is always Cygwin.
There is no primary nic, in the 'this hard drive is the master hard drive on the primary ide channel.' but there is still a nic you use the most. That was my point, on Linux I can pull info on just eth0. On Windows, there is no standard naming convention for nics. These are useful things for remote administration.
I thought that eth0 was just the first installed adapter. In Windows's Object Manager, network devices are named starting with \Device\Network0. Most things use the long name and you can change that to anything you want.
The whole point to the registry was to make it harder for people because the Win.ini/System.ini were too easily modified. It's in the MS Press Book on the registry. The fucking thing is worse than a sendmail.cf.
I don't share your conspiracy theory about the registry being hard to use on purpose. The point of the registry is to provide a standardized configuration database for everything. Hardly anything in Unix is standardized; every single config file has a unique and incompatible format.
Don't believe me, tell me what the hell {53B6AA67-3F56-11D0-916B-00AA00C18068} means.
That is a globally unique identifier (GUID), to provide stronger identification than a text name. Its meaning depends on context. For devices, its similar to the devices in/dev that are called a number, like/dev/10. The stuff in HKEY_CLASSES refer to COM class and interface IDs. The GUID you mentioned is for the COM class CSCardTypeConv in the library scardssp.dll; a type library for the Smart Card Base Service Providers. This class is for converting various datatypes specific to smart card providers. One little registry search told me that.
All the drivers for things are listed in the device manager. Don't forget the 'computer type' as it also refers to the HAL and it may be different. There is another method using ntbackup that is supposed to be a supported way to completely change hardware.
I haven't tried swithcing from an Intel CPU to an AMD one. Their CPUs haven't been pin compatible since at least the k6-2. However, VIA makes chipsets for both Intel and AMD cpus. It would be interesting to try that.
Ok, show me how to pull out just the ip address on the primary nic of your machine in Windows on the console.
ipconfig | find "IP Address" I can't find an equivalent to cut. BTW there is no such thing as a 'primary' nic.
How useful is that. In Linux, config files actually are damn near human readable (with the exception of sendmail, you need a Cylon to decipher one of those). Could you tell me all the relevant keys for any Windows Service such as DHCP or DNS? On Linux it would all be under/etc/dhcpd.conf or/etc/named.conf.
What's so unreadable about the registry, including the text version? Documentation isn't inline, but it is freely available. Services are supposed put their config info under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\[ServiceNam e]. the DNS server is called DNS. For some reason, the zone info is under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\DNS Server. The DHCP server is called DHCPServer. Much of DHCP's runtime data is in a Jet database named in the registry, usually dhcp.mdb in system32\dhcp. If you can't figure out the name of a service, look in the services control panel and go to properties. It will be in the 'Service Name' field.
That's funny, I've done the same thing on numerous machines and on each and every one there's always been some annoying side-effect that you can't work around and you have to reinstall anyways.
Did you reinstall all drivers that could be involved? What else did you do, short of reinstallation? I've yet to find a problem that needed reinstallation to fix.
not being able to install video drivers
Is it possible that the AGP bus controller hardware has changed, but the driver hasn't?
or a printer
What does printing have to do with the mainboard? Is it a network or local printer? If it's local, maybe the USB controller hardware has changed.
install some application
This is odd. Are you sure all the drivers have been updated correctly? Whenever I upgrade something like that, I first change all the drivers to the standard generic ones; after the upgrade make sure they correspond to the new hardware.
1)Yes, the drive letters are old and a bit bothersome; other posts have explained how mount volumes and subdirectories. Internally C: is just a symbolic link to \Device\HarddiskPartition1 in the Object Manager. The Object Manager is kinda like the VFS in Linux.
5)About the HAL: the HAL isn't optomized for CPUs; it is an interface to the interrupt controller, bios and some other things that can be motherboard specific.
7) If apps follow MS's guidelines, each app stores its settings under \Software\Company\Appname in the registry. Global settings go in the local machine software hive and user settings go into the specific user's hive in their profile. Large quantities of data are supposed to go under the application's directory and \Application Data of the user's profile. If you make a registry export of the program's keys, and optionally take user profiles with the app directory, you should be able to transplant anything (assuming the developer followed the guidelines). Thinking ahead: Yes, it's more complicated, and no I don't know of an automated way to do it.
8)A GUI that isn't doing anything isn't wasting cpu time. It does take some paged memory; if that memory is needed elsewhere it will be paged out.
9)I have never had a corrupted WinNT install. It's not like I don't use them, either.
About there being a place for both Windows and Linux (and others), I agree completely.
Hidden values? Are you talking about the Security Accounts Manager database? These values are (poorly) hidden to help protect password hashes so they can't be brute-forced back into the original password. The SAM database has nothing to do with licencing. The key that does is HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\ProductOptio ns.
Good for you. However, if you have been upgrading hardware or installing software, Windows does break, and more often than not, the breakage is hidden somewhere deep down inside the system.
That's funny; I recently upgraded my mobo to an entirely different chipset (from VIA to nVidia) and I am not having any problems (same install, no repairs, no errors). What do you consider 'deep inside the system'? The device manager? The drivers directory? The CurrentControlSet key?
The main problem with windows, as I see it, is the over dependance of the system registry. Corruption of the registry is fatal to the system. Even if the registry is not currpted, there are tons of keys hidden deep down within the heirarchy , many of which is not obvious what they control, and a lot of them auto-generated values with some arbitarty ID as keys! You can't get any user unfriendly than this.
I could say that there are lines hidden deep inside of some Perl script on a Unix machine, vital to its proper operation, that are poorly documented. Corruption of the filesystem database is fatal too. The registry has the same protection as a modern filesystem; a journal. Note the.log files when you have a registry hive open. I have never had a corrupted registry on a WinNT. Arbitrary values and keys? Care to name some examples? MSDN has lots of documentation about the registry. Try searching MSDN and the Web.
You've missed the point, if you don't have at least one slightly corrupted system file on your system I'd be amazed. If there is not at least one piece of broken registry in there somewhere i'd be in awe.
How can a system file be less than fully corrupted? How can it become arbitrairily corrupted; espescially with Windows File Protection? AFAIK, I have nothing corrupted. How do you tell? Does your method produce a lot of false positives?
Because literally 99% of installations that appear to go perfectly break SOMETHING. Break doesn't always mean you can't boot or that things don't APPEAR to be functioning properly.
How can you be so sure something is broken when there are no symptoms? So what if 99% of users don't know what they are doing and have things broken.
If you repair your own windows system it's almost guaranteed that you've fixed at least something that didn't make sense. Perhaps by reinstalling an application, or an over the top windows install, or booting from the XP cd and running the repair. Do you think there are magical computer gnomes which cause these things? Nope, it's shitty OS design.
Installing over an old installation is eqivalent to reinstallation. What, specifically, do you *think* is causing all the problems you apparently are having? Bad OS design? That's very general and easy to blame, but there has to be something specific.
Simply knowing enough to do an over the top installation rather than a reinstall or to repair chunks of the OS rather than reinstall doesn't mean you suffer from bitrot less than anyone else, it just means you use a smaller hammer to fix it.
Bitrot? I thought digital error-correction prevented this in hardware. Or are you saying that Windows inevitably degrades, no matter what? Each of my Windows NT based installs was installed once, set up the way I want it, and then devoid of needing any maintenence. My Windows installs don't degrade at all. I also don't restart; I don't need to patch most of my computers because they are in a private network behind a NAT router. My laptop is an exception from this, but security patches haven't caused me any problems.
A fun experiement is to install systemworks and let the norton utils repair the system, the accelerate bitrot quite astonishingly.
So Norton System Works messes up your computer to help sell itself?
pipe and output redirection that work. I just can't function under almost any of the shells available for Win (except by installing cygwin with zsh).
What do you mean, they don't work? Are you talking about some third-party program that doesn't use the console correctly? Mabye you aren't using them correctly?
more CLI goodness: history, programmable completion, lots of parsing commands that work well together (cut, grep, awk, sort).
Windows commands don't work well together? What about find, for and cmd? How about all the Windows Scripting host commands?
the availablity of software: need a drawing package? "apt-get install inkscape". need to manage your databases? "apt-get install tora"
Let's say I want a drawing package. How do I find one? I don't know that there is one called 'inkscape'. All I know is that I want a drawing package.
fabulous built-in handling of postscript.
Linux has postscript, Windows has metafiles.
portability of my environment. As I go through many different computers and distros, I can backup the ASCII files that represent both my global config and personal settings, and install them onto my new computer. I understand WinXP now has a rudimentary ability to move your DocumentsAndSettings between computers, but you're still stuck with the registry and Progra~1.
You can create ASCII and Unicode files of your registry settings, too. See Regedit->File->Export or the command reg export. What do you mean by XP now has? Every version of Windows that has users can transfer profiles. The Progra~1 thing is cute, but also very obsolete and irrelevant.
Bogus. You are describing what happens when you click the right mouse button. Click the left mouse button on the 'safely remove hardware' icon in the tray. A menu will pop up with the highest-level devices you can remove. Click your iPod or whatever once. A baloon will popup telling you it is safe to remove. Unplug it.
About IE, I agree completely. IE's development basically stopped with version 5, after it became dominant.
I think unless they came up with a perfect framework/basic-design right from the start (10 years ago) reusing code is just patching holes while more appear, the most important part of any project like this is the fundamental design principle and if it means re-doing from scratch to meet that then thats what needs to be done.
The design of Windows NT is quite good, IMO. The system is object-oriented and every object has a seperate ACL. Protected subsystems (like win32) provide their own APIs to applications using the native API, the single point where security is checked. The problem is Microsoft's sloppy coding practices and poor implementation decisions. I think a re-write is a little extreme, but an audit of all the code that could be at risk is in order.
Pop-up blockers need only to block _un-requested_ pop-ups or more than one pop-up from the same site/page and sites that actually need pop-ups could have told you on the front page "please click the enable pop-up button on the top of your window" etc. this is very simple stuff.
I agree with you, but I think the reasoning of the corporations is that people would complain that the page is hard to use. They would call into support because they didn't enable popups and the page isn't working; support costs money.
No, windows has gone through several complete re-write cycles - from 3.x to 9x and then to XP and also NT 4 -> NT 5 and unless they are flogging off 20 year old code these days, these are full re-writes (thats what a whole number version means right?)
A different major version number does not mean a complete re-write. That would be really expensive and time consuming. There would also be many more changes, like you described. There are two Windows code bases. The old Windows: 3.x, 9x and ME. This one evolved as a windowing environment on top of DOS. Windows 95 (win4.0) updated a lot of things, but it still has a great deal of code from 3.11 in it. Windows NT: NT3.1, NT3.5x, NT4, Win2k (NT5), WinXP (NT5.1), Server2k3 (NT5.2). Windows NT is a complete re-write of the old code base. It has (almost) no code in common with the other base. NT3.1 was released in 1993; I'd say at least 80% of its code is still present in XP and Server2003, ten years later.
Linux isnt perfect but consider this: If the entire Windows XP/9x/NT code-base was leaked tomorrow, Microsoft by their own philosophy think that 100's of security flaws would be discovered within days. Im sure most of them would be fixed fairly quickly producing a better product (although some might be inherent in the basic design) but imagine the entire Linux kernal was leaked? exactly, it already goes through that process every day.
If all the Windows code got leaked, I'm sure that many new vulns would be revealed, and once they are fixed it will lead to a better product. It might take a while; lots has already been leaked, and there hasn't been a flood of vulns. I think the security thing is just an excuse for Microsoft because they don't want to open up.
And yes, a Linux patch could theoretically hose a system, if it was a kernel patch (although I've never heard of this happening), but if a patch hoses a service, just rip out THAT SERVICE and re-install it. No need to roll the whole box. It's called "modular" for a reason.
So if a single service is broken in Linux, you would just fix it but if it is broken on Windows your only solution is to reinstall? I suppose you are going to tell me that every component in Windows is hopelessly interdependant and integrated; that would be FUD. It's only your own fault for not being able to fix things in Windows without a sledgehammer. BTW, I haven't had any problems with any MS service packs or patches; if I did, that's why all the old binaries are right there in the uninstall directory for each patch.
The BIOS keyboard settings won't do anything. Windows has its own drivers and doesn't use BIOS for the keyboard. I'm currently using a USB keyboard on XP and the keyboard control panel works fine. My keyboard is listed as a HID Keyboard Device, part of a USB composite device (volume buttons too). The composite device uses the driver usbccgp.sys, the HID device uses hidclass.sys, hidparse.sys, hidusb.sys, and hid.dll. The keyboard itself uses kbdclass.sys and kbdhid.sys. Are you possibly using some third-party keyboard enhancement software that could be interfering? I didn't install any software with my keyboard. (the drivers are already in Windows)
Internet Explorer. The only thing it is integrated with is the shell (ie explorer). Process Explorer tells me that Internet Explorer is acutally implemented mostly in (on xpsp1) shell32.dll 7.85mb (5.5mb of which is pictures and AVIs) mshtml.dll 2.66mb shdocvw.dll 1.27mb browseui.dll.97mb sxs.dll 695kb wininet.dll 574kb shdoclc.dll 536kb shlwapi.dll 386kb
TCP/IP has always been included with Windows NT. So has a FTP server and client. Notepad and Calculator, too.
Windows already has a local filesystem abstraction layer. File systems have drivers, like any device. NTFS (or any other fs) is not integrated in the kernel. cdfs.sys for CDFS fastfat.sys for FAT12/16/32 mrxdav.sys for WebDav (access files over http using normal file ops) mrxsmb.sys for SMB msfs.sys for mailslots (the mailslot filesystem) mup.sys- the multiple UNC provider driver; to handle \\computername\share\path npfs.sys for named pipes (the named pipe filesystem) ntfs.sys for NTFS udfs.sys for UDFS Windows certainly supports third-party file system drivers. The problem is that the Microsoft IFS (installable filesystem) kit costs $899. There is a free/open alternative here. However, in practice, there are no alternatives to MS filesystems. Your suggestion of a SMB server over a fast connection is a good one.
Are you sure this is a physical file system? In the Windows quick start guide, it lists actions taken by the installer. Installing a kernel-mode filesystem driver (a.sys into \system32\drivers) is not one of the steps. The only thing that goes into a Windows directory is a.cpl control panel extension to configure it. Furthermore, the documentation also states that:
If you are configuring this AFS Server as a File Server, you must specify an NTFS volume to designate as an AFS partition. Every AFS File Server must have at least one partition designated exclusively to storing AFS volumes, and all AFS volumes must reside on partitions that have been designated as AFS partitions. On a Windows NT machine, only NTFS volumes can be designated as AFS partitions. In addition, AFS partitions can be created only on NTFS volumes that are empty (or contain only the Windows NT Recycle Bin).
This implies that NTFS is still there, underneath AFS. A partition wouldn't still be NTFS if it used a different filesystem.
AFS appears to be a distributed file serving system, like Microsoft DFS.
It's a very fine distinction I'm making, and I'm not sure I'm doing a great job at putting it into words.
I understand; to be tempted to do something is not the same thing as actually doing it. I can be very angry at someone; tempted to hurt them, but actually hurting them is wrong.
Maybe not, but I think if someone exercises self-control habitually, it gets easier. The same way as when a smoker keeps ignoring their cravings; eventually, they'll lessen.
I'm sure that dicipline does make it easier. The easist way to avoid a smoking addiction is to not start; it is possible to avoid. Sex is a part of being human: lust for sex cannot be avoided. So, the temptation is not avoidable but acting on it is. I would ask myself why I am putting an artificial constraint on myself. (like marriage or only having sex with a certain gender) If I can find I good reason (marriage is definately good for famlies; I can't really be a biological parent without hetero-sex) then fine. So far, I don't consider 'because the Bible says so' a good reason.
Smoking is bad because it is unhealthy, both to the smoker and others. Sex for pleasure is not bad for any involved parties; let alone thoughts about it. Who you have sex with is irrelevant. Other conditions may make it bad (like adultry or unreasonable lust) but it doesn't have to be. Other than that the Bible says its bad, what is wrong with homosexuality?
I agree. And the individuals still can choose to do that - they do all the time in our world. All the Bible is doing is presenting the best way to live - and the consequences of not living that way. I firmly believe that the repurcussions of the actions proscribed by the Bible are *consequences*, not necessarily *punishment*. Not to say that God doesn't punish people, but you've got to make a distinction between God's punishment, and the natural consequences of one's actions.
If not punishment, then what? If you have a group of people, everyone in the group knowingly consents to what they are doing, and they do not affect anyone else, then they should be allowed to do anything they want, without outside interference (including coersion, even from God). Any consequences for their actions should be exactly what happens to them. (in the natural world) The entire sin->hell thing is totally unnecessary. Those people will already have consequences (if any) to face, more consequences imposed by an outside entity (IE God) aren't needed. I'm talking about thoughts, and choices about sex in particular.
Sort of. I believe they have individual merits because they're in the Bible, but I just don't particularly know what those merits are. Some I can see, some I can't, maybe because I'm not knowledgable enough, or don't have experience in that area. I assume that since I can find reasons for some, there probably are reasons for the rest of them.
Just because some of the claims in the Bible are substantiated is not reason to believe that any others are. Each claim needs independent reasoning (for me). I wouldn't be able to believe a bag of statements together like that. This, I believe, is the root of differences between us in this thread; a difference of values. Which is fine. I'm glad that we are having a rational discussion; I enjoy a good debate. Good debates are too hard to come by.
The Bible has a specific purpose, and it doesn't talk much about things outside its purpose. We've got to figure the rest of the stuff out ourselves.
I agree with what you are saying. There is another issue: Given enough time, everything in the natural world can be explained using science. Where can I go to learn everything about the supernatural world; everything about God? (not just the interface) I am disappointed that there is no method guaranteed to provide this information.
No. But then, I don't see myself as having a particular problem in the homosexuality department. I have problems in other areas, where my natural inclination goes against what God says I should do. Sometimes I do what is right, and sometimes I succumb to temptation, but I try (and am getting more successful, as time goes by and I grow in God) to exercise self-control and keep myself to what I believe rather than what I desire.
How can you say that homosexuality is a choice when you cannot even choose your own sexual preference? I say this because your main support of sexual preference being a choice is personal belief. I'm all for self-control, but I don't think I could change my preference either. Maybe by a program of professional behavior modification or brainwashing.
He puts restrictions of heterosexual sex as well; it's only for within marriage. The Bible says that sex should be an exclusive relationship. Sex acts as an intesifying force in a relationship. In a married couple, sex can help them develop intimacy, and keep them together. In an unmarried couple, I suppose it can do the same thing. But an unmarried couple doesn't have that social contract that constrains them to stay together - even these days, married people are more likely to stay together than unmarried. When a guy breaks up with his girlfriend, its most often painful for at least one of them. If its a sexual relationship, its usually even more painful. I know of one person, indirectly (a friend of a friend) who committed suicide after a sexual relationship broke apart. Sex adds compliations to a relationship that needs the structure of a public and formal commitment to each other (ie: marriage) to keep things running smoothly.
I agree with everything you said above. Sex is intimate; it should be a personal choice. Why does God need to control this? Sure, when people get involved in a relationship, there is risk. Evaluating that risk is a responsibility that belongs to the individuals involved. If those people want to be foolish, if they want to enter risky relationships, then they will face any consequences, as they come. When all involved parties consent, I believe that they can do anything they want.
As for the "why" of homosexuality, I don't really know. I act on the assumption that God has a reason.
Is there a way to find out what that reason is? If the Bible doesn't contain the answer, can someone ask God and get a straight answer? Perhaps a representative? -Rules about crop planting that have changed arbitrarily with Jesus's coming -Holding people responsible for their parents actions thousands of years ago; even giving them a lesser penalty (longer life) -Condemning people for a sexual preference that is, at most, a personal decision; for no reason -Other unreasonable (because they don't have independent reasons) demands on sexual behavior, like marriage These are unreasonable policies that God apparently demands people to believe. You believe them because the Bible tells you so; you do not believe them based on individual merits. Am I wrong?
are a PITA! The easiest way to transfer something to another user is to drop it on his desktop. Drilling down through endless layers of heirarchy to locate the correct desktop is easy? Have you tried copying My Documents from one user to another? Or duplicating the desktop for two users? Silly XP copies all user rights with them, requiring extra work to make them accesible. Trying to install software and make it accessible to many users on one machine is still an exercise in futility. All the XP machines in our shop run users as Administrator because of the software we use so there are no security advantages. Overall, MS doesn't really get multi-users yet.
You could always create shortcuts to the other user's dektop folders. Use paste shortcut after copying the folder. XP also improves the situation by providing a Shared Documents folder and the My Documents folders of every user under My Computer. If you don't like the file permissions, create new ones on the documents folder and set them to inherit. Change the 'Default User' profile to make them default for all users.
and what devices in a business environment doyou use USB 2.0 for?
External hard drives? A fast USB disk, perhaps? Besides, you can still have USB 2.0 support in 98SE.
I turn it off on the XP machines at work. More often than not, I find it rolling things back at random times and destroying whatever I last installed.
I personally haven't had these problems, but I turn it off anyways because I can better fix problems myself and it wastes disk space.
Most of the advantages in XP seem to be meant for home users, not business users. Most of the systems in our shop do not have (or need) speakers, so multi-media extensions built into XP are no advantage.
XP does not have more multimedia 'extensions' than 2k and I don't think it has more than 98SE, either. There are other enhancements for business though, like many more command like programs, better remote administration and assistance with Remote Assistance, and with sp2, a concurrent remote TS connection.
The main computer use is one user to one machine. If that person is sick or missing, then the only reason another user would log onto that machine is to do the same tasks as that user, and, as I pointed out above, another user on that machine would not have access to the same files and programs as the original user. The only way to do the same job is to log on as the same user! So what good does multi-users on one machine do?
No, this isn't doesn't seem to be a good reason for multiple users. A file server would be better if you needed to share documents. It's not so hard to share documents on the same computer, though.
We use NT 4.0 as server, mostly Win98SE as workstations and it works fine for us. Stability is not an issue. The only thing we ever needed from Microsoft was to fix their buggy product! Instead, they keep releasing new versions that don't always work and play well with earlier products and bring a whole new set of bugs. Win 2k is OK on our network; XP Home blows on our network and XP Pro is buggier than Win 98SE!
Personally, I find XP and 2k to be much less buggy than 98SE. XP home and pro are the same thing except for some minor licencing stuff. Still, I hear you about compatibility, and not chainging things unless they are broken.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, this isn't an inherant flaw of the registry, but how it is used.
In Windows's Object Manager, network devices are named starting with \Device\Network0. Most things use the long name and you can change that to anything you want.I don't share your conspiracy theory about the registry being hard to use on purpose. The point of the registry is to provide a standardized configuration database for everything. Hardly anything in Unix is standardized; every single config file has a unique and incompatible format.That is a globally unique identifier (GUID), to provide stronger identification than a text name. Its meaning depends on context. For devices, its similar to the devices in
The GUID you mentioned is for the COM class CSCardTypeConv in the library scardssp.dll; a type library for the Smart Card Base Service Providers. This class is for converting various datatypes specific to smart card providers.
One little registry search told me that.
All the drivers for things are listed in the device manager. Don't forget the 'computer type' as it also refers to the HAL and it may be different. There is another method using ntbackup that is supposed to be a supported way to completely change hardware.
I haven't tried swithcing from an Intel CPU to an AMD one. Their CPUs haven't been pin compatible since at least the k6-2. However, VIA makes chipsets for both Intel and AMD cpus. It would be interesting to try that.
I can't find an equivalent to cut.
BTW there is no such thing as a 'primary' nic.What's so unreadable about the registry, including the text version? Documentation isn't inline, but it is freely available.
Services are supposed put their config info under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\[ServiceNa
The DHCP server is called DHCPServer. Much of DHCP's runtime data is in a Jet database named in the registry, usually dhcp.mdb in system32\dhcp.
If you can't figure out the name of a service, look in the services control panel and go to properties. It will be in the 'Service Name' field.
Whenever I upgrade something like that, I first change all the drivers to the standard generic ones; after the upgrade make sure they correspond to the new hardware.
1)Yes, the drive letters are old and a bit bothersome; other posts have explained how mount volumes and subdirectories. Internally C: is just a symbolic link to \Device\HarddiskPartition1 in the Object Manager. The Object Manager is kinda like the VFS in Linux.
5)About the HAL: the HAL isn't optomized for CPUs; it is an interface to the interrupt controller, bios and some other things that can be motherboard specific.
7) If apps follow MS's guidelines, each app stores its settings under \Software\Company\Appname in the registry. Global settings go in the local machine software hive and user settings go into the specific user's hive in their profile. Large quantities of data are supposed to go under the application's directory and \Application Data of the user's profile. If you make a registry export of the program's keys, and optionally take user profiles with the app directory, you should be able to transplant anything (assuming the developer followed the guidelines). Thinking ahead: Yes, it's more complicated, and no I don't know of an automated way to do it.
8)A GUI that isn't doing anything isn't wasting cpu time. It does take some paged memory; if that memory is needed elsewhere it will be paged out.
9)I have never had a corrupted WinNT install. It's not like I don't use them, either.
About there being a place for both Windows and Linux (and others), I agree completely.
Hidden values? Are you talking about the Security Accounts Manager database? These values are (poorly) hidden to help protect password hashes so they can't be brute-forced back into the original password. The SAM database has nothing to do with licencing. The key that does is HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\ProductOptio ns.
What do you consider 'deep inside the system'? The device manager? The drivers directory? The CurrentControlSet key?I could say that there are lines hidden deep inside of some Perl script on a Unix machine, vital to its proper operation, that are poorly documented.
Corruption of the filesystem database is fatal too. The registry has the same protection as a modern filesystem; a journal. Note the
Arbitrary values and keys? Care to name some examples?
MSDN has lots of documentation about the registry. Try searching MSDN and the Web.
So what if 99% of users don't know what they are doing and have things broken.Installing over an old installation is eqivalent to reinstallation.
What, specifically, do you *think* is causing all the problems you apparently are having? Bad OS design? That's very general and easy to blame, but there has to be something specific.Bitrot? I thought digital error-correction prevented this in hardware. Or are you saying that Windows inevitably degrades, no matter what? Each of my Windows NT based installs was installed once, set up the way I want it, and then devoid of needing any maintenence. My Windows installs don't degrade at all. I also don't restart; I don't need to patch most of my computers because they are in a private network behind a NAT router. My laptop is an exception from this, but security patches haven't caused me any problems.So Norton System Works messes up your computer to help sell itself?
What do you mean by XP now has? Every version of Windows that has users can transfer profiles.
The Progra~1 thing is cute, but also very obsolete and irrelevant.
Bogus. You are describing what happens when you click the right mouse button. Click the left mouse button on the 'safely remove hardware' icon in the tray. A menu will pop up with the highest-level devices you can remove. Click your iPod or whatever once. A baloon will popup telling you it is safe to remove. Unplug it.
There are two Windows code bases.
The old Windows: 3.x, 9x and ME. This one evolved as a windowing environment on top of DOS. Windows 95 (win4.0) updated a lot of things, but it still has a great deal of code from 3.11 in it.
Windows NT: NT3.1, NT3.5x, NT4, Win2k (NT5), WinXP (NT5.1), Server2k3 (NT5.2). Windows NT is a complete re-write of the old code base. It has (almost) no code in common with the other base. NT3.1 was released in 1993; I'd say at least 80% of its code is still present in XP and Server2003, ten years later.If all the Windows code got leaked, I'm sure that many new vulns would be revealed, and once they are fixed it will lead to a better product. It might take a while; lots has already been leaked, and there hasn't been a flood of vulns. I think the security thing is just an excuse for Microsoft because they don't want to open up.
I suppose you are going to tell me that every component in Windows is hopelessly interdependant and integrated; that would be FUD.
It's only your own fault for not being able to fix things in Windows without a sledgehammer.
BTW, I haven't had any problems with any MS service packs or patches; if I did, that's why all the old binaries are right there in the uninstall directory for each patch.
The BIOS keyboard settings won't do anything. Windows has its own drivers and doesn't use BIOS for the keyboard. I'm currently using a USB keyboard on XP and the keyboard control panel works fine. My keyboard is listed as a HID Keyboard Device, part of a USB composite device (volume buttons too).
The composite device uses the driver usbccgp.sys, the HID device uses hidclass.sys, hidparse.sys, hidusb.sys, and hid.dll. The keyboard itself uses kbdclass.sys and kbdhid.sys.
Are you possibly using some third-party keyboard enhancement software that could be interfering? I didn't install any software with my keyboard. (the drivers are already in Windows)
Internet Explorer. The only thing it is integrated with is the shell (ie explorer). Process Explorer tells me that Internet Explorer is acutally implemented mostly in (on xpsp1) .97mb
shell32.dll 7.85mb (5.5mb of which is pictures and AVIs)
mshtml.dll 2.66mb
shdocvw.dll 1.27mb
browseui.dll
sxs.dll 695kb
wininet.dll 574kb
shdoclc.dll 536kb
shlwapi.dll 386kb
TCP/IP has always been included with Windows NT. So has a FTP server and client. Notepad and Calculator, too.
What does AFS do? From what I read, AFS does the same thing.
Windows already has a local filesystem abstraction layer. File systems have drivers, like any device. NTFS (or any other fs) is not integrated in the kernel.
cdfs.sys for CDFS
fastfat.sys for FAT12/16/32
mrxdav.sys for WebDav (access files over http using normal file ops)
mrxsmb.sys for SMB
msfs.sys for mailslots (the mailslot filesystem)
mup.sys- the multiple UNC provider driver; to handle \\computername\share\path
npfs.sys for named pipes (the named pipe filesystem)
ntfs.sys for NTFS
udfs.sys for UDFS
Windows certainly supports third-party file system drivers. The problem is that the Microsoft IFS (installable filesystem) kit costs $899. There is a free/open alternative here.
However, in practice, there are no alternatives to MS filesystems. Your suggestion of a SMB server over a fast connection is a good one.
AFS appears to be a distributed file serving system, like Microsoft DFS.
Organic means that it contains carbon and hydrogen; and is derived from an organism.
No it wont. Not because the components are missing, but because of licencing. But you are right; that isn't so minor.
Smoking is bad because it is unhealthy, both to the smoker and others. Sex for pleasure is not bad for any involved parties; let alone thoughts about it. Who you have sex with is irrelevant. Other conditions may make it bad (like adultry or unreasonable lust) but it doesn't have to be.
Other than that the Bible says its bad, what is wrong with homosexuality?If not punishment, then what? If you have a group of people, everyone in the group knowingly consents to what they are doing, and they do not affect anyone else, then they should be allowed to do anything they want, without outside interference (including coersion, even from God). Any consequences for their actions should be exactly what happens to them. (in the natural world) The entire sin->hell thing is totally unnecessary. Those people will already have consequences (if any) to face, more consequences imposed by an outside entity (IE God) aren't needed. I'm talking about thoughts, and choices about sex in particular. Just because some of the claims in the Bible are substantiated is not reason to believe that any others are. Each claim needs independent reasoning (for me). I wouldn't be able to believe a bag of statements together like that.
This, I believe, is the root of differences between us in this thread; a difference of values. Which is fine.
I'm glad that we are having a rational discussion; I enjoy a good debate. Good debates are too hard to come by.
I am disappointed that there is no method guaranteed to provide this information.How can you say that homosexuality is a choice when you cannot even choose your own sexual preference? I say this because your main support of sexual preference being a choice is personal belief.
I'm all for self-control, but I don't think I could change my preference either. Maybe by a program of professional behavior modification or brainwashing.I agree with everything you said above.
Sex is intimate; it should be a personal choice. Why does God need to control this? Sure, when people get involved in a relationship, there is risk. Evaluating that risk is a responsibility that belongs to the individuals involved. If those people want to be foolish, if they want to enter risky relationships, then they will face any consequences, as they come. When all involved parties consent, I believe that they can do anything they want.Is there a way to find out what that reason is? If the Bible doesn't contain the answer, can someone ask God and get a straight answer? Perhaps a representative?
-Rules about crop planting that have changed arbitrarily with Jesus's coming
-Holding people responsible for their parents actions thousands of years ago; even giving them a lesser penalty (longer life)
-Condemning people for a sexual preference that is, at most, a personal decision; for no reason
-Other unreasonable (because they don't have independent reasons) demands on sexual behavior, like marriage
These are unreasonable policies that God apparently demands people to believe. You believe them because the Bible tells you so; you do not believe them based on individual merits. Am I wrong?