Linux-Advocacy Digest #80, Volume #30 Mon, 6 Nov 00 06:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:00:17 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
Big post, very good arguements.
> >> >FTP & Telnet are hard to find on a non 2000 windows machine, very easy
if
> >> >you've them.
> >>
> >> <*Chuckle*> So I suppose this means that amongst your limited
> >> experience with Unix, you've often run into the problem that such
> >> utilities may not be in the default path?
> >
> >Who is talking about unix here? I was clearly refering to windows
machines
> >here.
>
> In the quoted line, yes, but you were indeed talking about unix, here.
> You indicated you'd had some problems with using these on Unix. I
> guessed it might have been the default path thing, but you indicated
> later that it might have been syntax or performance, I'm not sure...
The sentence was referring to windows machines, I could've phrased it a
little better, but in the context it was written it was clear (enough?) that
I was talking about the lack of good cli tools for windows.
> [...]
> >> Because batch files are batch files, not scripts. ;-)
> >
> >Check out the other options.
>
> You mean other than batch files or scripts? Why?
No, I mean check out scripting, windows support 3 languages natively, more
if you can to take the effort to expand it. You can use some of Unix's
scritping languages. Perl, for example.
> >No, if I can get the *same* functionablity/ease of use from a GUI as I
can
> >get from CLI, I know what my choice would be.
>
> You can't. Sorry. It is simply not possible at the current state of
> computer science to have a GUI provide nearly the same functionality or
> ease of use. GUIs just make learning a little faster, (and more
> limited, if you try to reduce computer functionality to match the
> metaphor) and everything else, generally, slower.
That depend on how we define it.
But please note what I said "functionablity/ease of use" unfortantely, there
is usually a tradeoff between the two, somewhere, you got a cli tool with is
very functional but hard to use, and a gui with is easy to use but takes
logner to do. In the end, I believe it equals.
> >There is no reason to use CLI if you can do the same as efficenty and
easily
> >in GUI.
>
> But you cannot, ever. Efficiency is one of those things which doesn't
> require "and easily"; its redundant. If it isn't easy, it isn't
> efficient.
No, that isn't always the case.
> Conversely, if it takes a click-click-drag-click alone to
> execute a procedure, iteratively, whatever the appropriate CLI technique
> is, no matter how slow your typing, its going to be more efficient to do
> it in the CLI after the first hundred or so executions. Sure,
> automation of the GUI is theoretically possible, but you'll notice that
> it is rarely implemented, indicating it might be less practically
> feasible than we might desire. GUIs can be as quick as a CLI for many
> tasks; they can never be as efficient as a CLI can for any task.
What do you mean by this?
Can you expand?
I can do a lot of things via GUI (even on unix) much faster than I could in
the cli. (mainly browsing the hard disk, GUI is *real* convient in this
aspect. )
Try to copy all the files larger than 5 MB in a certain folder to another,
where none of the file names share anything with each other. I can do it in
about 5 seconds in GUI, including the browsing to the destination folder. In
CLI, (at least dos cli, I'm not that familiar with unix cli. Does dir/ls
allows you to spesipy size of files or size larger/smaller of?) you would've
to do it by hand, file after file. If I've 100s of files, how is this
inefficent?
Doesn't this make the GUI more efficent tool for this spesific task.
> >That being said, what do you think encompass 95% of computer users?
>
> People who haven't learned enough about computers yet to understand how
> efficient a CLI is in contrast to a GUI.
Efficient how? You admit that there are things that you can do from the GUI
which would be faster than do it on the CLI, and more inutiative as well,
how does turn the CLI to more efficent.
> >How hard is it to turn something off/on and cause kernel panic in linux?
> >Something worse?
> >This isn't a theoretical capability, it's a real capability, the not too
> >many people use it indicate that perhaps people feel comfortable in
windows
> >GUI or that they rather have consistent GUI in all the computers they
have
> >to work on.
>
> Or possibly that the top 10 OEMs of PCs are still locked in to pre-load
> contracts which ensure that it is the only thing that most people will
> likely be familiar with. And its really easy to mistake familiar for
> "easy", when you don't ever get to see the alternatives conveniently or
> easily available.
What are the top 10 OEM names?
I work with many versions of linux, never to the extense that I work in
windows, I would by no means define myself as knowledgable in linux/unix,
but I think that I'm capable of setting up a linux box and use it for most
of my needs. Power user? maybe, I can work with linux, I'm quite familiar
with linux various WMs, I find them all lacking in comparision to windows.
> [...]
> >> I think the 'customization' being referred to might extend a bit beyond
> >> changing the window colors.
> >
> >He was refering to not being able to change the gray ugly color of the
> >windows.
>
> He may have referred to that, and may have been showing his mistake in
> not knowing how to change the gray ugly color of the windows. Given
> that he might be considered a competent computer user, I must suspect
> what Microsoft might have done wrong to bring about this situation.
There is very little that you can do short of ruining your machine
completely to disable the ability to change window colors.
And I've never, ever, met any difficulity with this, from win3.11 and up to
2000.
I never had a crush due to changing the colors, (Plus 95 would act strangely
on non english letters until reboot, but that is unlikely to be his
problem).
> [...]
> >No, best GUI, is one that doesn't need me to tweak it in order to get the
> >most functionablity.
>
> Well, that leaves Windows right out. I wouldn't begin to try to use it,
> for instance, at least on my regular system, without installation and
> configuration of PowerToys, whenever Windows' crapware nature or a
> hardware upgrade forces me to start from a standard desktop. It takes
> about twenty minutes to do the clicky clicky to get things running
> acceptably.
Not for me, while powertoys are nice, they are what their name declare them
to be, toys.
I would've to dedicate much more time in order to make a linux WM conviniant
to me. (conveniant != identical to windows, btw)
> >I can re-write the gnome engine so it would do anything I can think of by
> >pressing a key, does this mean that gnome is capable of doing this?
> >I'm talking out of the box functionality.
>
> I'm talking about your functionality, while sitting in front of the box.
> It does not extend to any substantial reconfiguration of the GUI, in
> Windows, but it does on Linux. You could go so far as to re-write the
> gnome engine, though I doubt it would be worth the trouble, while simply
> trying to keep the icons to stay where you want them on Windows is a
> vanished dream in most cases. (My previous 95 box, and now my NT
> system, both have this weird habit of reversing the sort order of icons
> on the desktop. Has that ever happened to anyone else? Its weird,
> because the icons on the desktop don't *have* a sort direction control
> that I can find.)
Never happened to me, but right click on desktop, arrange icons, and chose
the way to arrange them.
The point is that in linux, in order to *be* functionable in front of the
GUI, I would likely have to re-write at least some the WM.
I don't have this problem with macs, btw. (not a lot of experiance there,
though.)
With Macs is simply getting used to another GUI, in Linux, however, the GUI
is leaving me with a feeling of needing more.
> >No to mention that corel's GUI was the only one with no-mouse-avialable
> >support that was worth something.
>
> This is one of the things that keeps me on Windows. I use Unix (mostly
> Solaris) systems routinely in my work, so it doesn't bother me as much
> as it once did (and I've noticed I've gotten used to using the mouse to
> do window manipulation, even on Windows, much more than I used to) and I
> used a Mac for years despite this limitation. But if there is one thing
> that Microsoft has produced that is in any way valuable, it is the more
> complete keyboard control of the GUI which they have always supplied in
> Windows. There own support for it grows less with each version, though,
> not in terms of things you can't do with the keyboard, but simply the
> fact that they are obviously just tacking it on as a requirement, with
> no thought given to how to make it *convenient* to do things from the
> keyboard. Most things remain possible from the keyboard, but often more
> trouble than they're worth.
Actually, except for the hardship is maxmimizing/minimizing windows, I don't
think this is true.
You still can have a fully functional windows if you don't have a mouse.
With the exception of corel's WM, all the others that I've tried would seat
there looking nice while I curse them if I don't have a mouse.
There is a *lot* that I can do with the keyboard which would be much faster
than with the mouse, especially after setting up shortcuts and learning the
native windows ones.
Doing the same for the Mac wouldn't be such a big a deal, for linux, I would
most probably have to write it to the WM myself.
> [...]
> >A> All the GUIs *don't* support all applications, there are applications
> >that need KDE, some that need Gnome, and so on, right?
>
> Yes. And it makes a dandy "consumer metric" to inform the market as to
> the quality and value of a product: the more GUIs it supports, the
> better the package. The same principle allows users to gauge the
> benefits of a Unix software package, without knowing anything at all
> about programming: the more flavors it is popular on, the more robust
> and functional it must be.
More GUI it support = More cost in time/money
Most programs being developed for linux under GPL, that rule can't quite
apply here, now can it?
> >B> All the GUI *within* a single WM *aren't* consistent, right?
>
> Well, without getting into subjective disputes, no GUIs are entirely
> consistent across all applications within any single window manager.
> Windows doesn't score any better or worse on this account, though the
> chances that when something works "differently", it will mean that it
> works unlike anything else, rather than simply differently than you
> expect, on Windows. There are a tremendous number of ways to program a
> GUI in an application, even given a requirement for consistency within
> the wm level of functionality. Programmers universally don't do as much
> as they should, unless they do, in dealing with this type of
> consistency.
We are on agreement here.
> http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm
Good site, both for educational and homous purposes. I'm currently reading
the errors section, it's hilarious.
Microsoft Developer Studio is GOOD one.
> >> The Windows abstraction is a metaphor which is inconsistent with
itself.
> >> Considering consistency only in terms of how much like Windows other
> >> GUIs are is missing the point of the matter.
> >
> >Could you explain yourself?
> >The windows GUI is consistent, perhaps not from version to version (95 vs
nt
> >interface) but certainly within a given version, it is consistent. For
that
> >matter, I'd people used to work on 98 that then went to work on 2000
> >probably without even noticing.
>
> Perhaps from your perspective, which I must suspect is more centered on
> Windows (perhaps you haven't used other systems as much as I) the
> Windows GUI is certainly more well-defined than almost any other.
> Monopoly sourcing will do that. So it is consistent with itself in one
> way: it works however Microsoft says it works. You are correct that
> Microsoft changes it from version to version, but maintains consistency
> across platforms. Yet, within the Windows interface itself, it breaks
> its own metaphors, if it even manages to provide an abstraction.
Most probably not. But I've used other systems to varying degrees.
Mac GUI is as defined, btw. But then, Apple is a monopoly as well.
> Now, another reason you would think I'd need to "explain myself",
> instead of simply explaining things to you, is that the Windows GUI has
> been dominant for so long that practically any other GUI can only be
> discussed in terms of how it is similar to or different from Windows.
> This again contributes to the conviction that Windows is consistent.
> But the real consistency of Windows would, I'd expect, be reflected in
> things which support the Windows implementation philosophy: make it
> simple. I have a hard time considering the five different and somewhat
> unrelated places I have to go in order to configure a modem connection,
> in its entirety. Now, I might have to configure five different text
> files in unrelated directories to get a Linux dial-up working. But they
> are all consistent in metaphor: edit the text. In Windows, we have two
> or three "control panels", something hovering in a file manager window
> that isn't a file, and a bizarre kind of window which this produces.
> And every one of these breaks some other part of the metaphor.
Userwise, it's the same thing.
You need to have some access to configure things, the design is consistent
with the UI, not with what is really going on.
That the Control Panel is a sub directory of My Computer and no in some HD
is also a hint that it's not a regular directory.
I understand what you are going to, and you are correct and mistaken at the
same time.
You say that editing configs in linux is consistent: Edit text. (I disagree
slightly on this because of the config format that they use, but that is
beside the point)
Which isn't the same in winodows, as changes you do in the command panel
affect various of things, usually in the registery, but not always.
The point is not what is going behind the scenes, the point is what is that
the UI is consistent. And configuring different options is done via similar
UI. From the User point of view, it's consistent.
> The control panel, for instance, acts like a folder, but is not one. As
> does dial up networking, in 9x. (On NT, its even worse; that's all I'll
> say on the matter.) But the control panel folder which isn't a
> directory doesn't work the same as the dial up networking folder which
> isn't a directory, precisely. And neither act like folders; they're
> merely represented as folders. In MacOS, where Windows got the Control
> Panel from, the control panel is *actually a folder*. You put things
> into it by moving files, just like any other folder. The control panel
> is slightly different, and actually implements several abstractions,
> using both files with a certain extension in the Windows folder, and
> registry entries linking stuff to DLLs.
See above.
> The fact is, Windows inconsistencies are practically ubiquitous; it is
> more inconsistent than consistent. It is a hodge-podge of conflicting
> metaphors and bad design plastered over with dubiously routine graphics.
> It only seems consistent to you because you're used to it. You're also
> used to having it change, or act in ways different than you'd expect,
> because it is consistent in that regard, as well. It consistently
> doesn't do what you expect it to do. So any amount of success at having
> things work the same every time a user attempts an operation is where
> the consistency of Windows really disappears, regardless of how similar
> the controls are among different programs.
I would like some more information about this, because generalization are
wrong in this case.
Windows, on general, does exactly what I expect it to.
> >MS published a set of guidelines for GUI for windows, isn't it?
>
> Yes, and they routinely ignore their own guidelines. One might suspect
> they only publish them in order to enhance the "churn" which keeps ISVs
> at a disadvantage in either competing with MS or promoting portability
> so that other OS developers can compete with MS. Particularly given the
> great deal of effort MS seems to make to change things around in their
> visual guidelines, and the "out of the blue innovation" of new interface
> mechanisms.
I thought MS didn't do innovations :D
Anyway, I'd to load a program from 1995 on ME, it run fine and wasn't at all
hard to use, (it was a multi language word processing) anyone who used word
processing software can use it.
If you are talking about the UI change from, say: word 95 to word 2000, then
I'll have to disagree.
That they changed some minor way it looks doesn't interfere with the UI ease
of use.
> >Most of the programs for windows follow those guidelines, don't they?
> >You realize the comfort in being able to use the same familiar interface
for
> >various of tasks, don't you?
>
> Yes, but I also realize how small an amount of comfort that is, compared
> to actual consistency in an interface. This is a retread of the old
> 'Microsoft did everyone a favor by monopolizing; now we all use the same
> applications, which makes transferring documents easy as pie.' Until
> you have anything but the newest version of the app.
"Compared to actual consistency in an interface"? Isn't this what I'm
arguing for?
bullshit = 'Microsoft did everyone a favor by monopolizing; now we all use
the same applications, which makes transferring documents easy as pie.'
> >> When programming for a real operating system, you should not be
> >> second-guessing how the end-user wants his GUI to work. The number of
> >> different GUIs that you can support from the list above is the extent
of
> >> your market opportunity. Don't you think it would be worth your while
> >> to write your software so that it works with any of them?
> >
> >Not if I want my application to be conveniant.
>
> Convenient for whom?
The end user.
> [...]
> >How does windows GUI inconsistent?
> >I know that this isn't exactly what those books are talking about, I was
> >trying to expand it.
>
> That's the problem. You aren't the only one: many many people don't
> even realize they are "expanding" the idea of consistency when they
> claim Windows is consistent, simply because all Windows is Microsoft
> Windows.
How so?
I already stated that I don't care what GUI linux would use, as long it
would use one.
> >If you realize the importance of keeping your program's GUI consistent
> >within itself, because it's easier for the user that way, can't you see
that
> >it is easier to the user if most applications share the same GUI?
>
> The question has no answer, because it is self-conflicted. All programs
> running in one GUI are using the same GUI. How much that GUI varies,
> and whether you define "the GUI" as the visual appearance behavior of
> only one application, multiple applications, or every and all
> applications and the OS, is a different issue. No, there is no inherent
> efficiency, and some potential loss in expediency as well as
> effectiveness, if all applications within a desktop use entirely
> identical controls. Particularly in a GUI as inconsistent, within its
> own abstraction, as Windows.
GUI in this case should be the UI, the way the application looks like.
Applications doesn't use identical controls, they use similar look & feel.
> >And who is
> >talking about adopting the windows GUI?
> >I don't care what GUI you want to adopt, but choose one, and stick to it.
>
> No thanks. Quite frankly, the idea makes no sense. Take cars... (Cars
> are not computers, but even they all have some variation in their visual
> presentation of information and controls.)
99% of the cars has the gas pedal on the right and the brakes on the left,
right?
I can get into any car and drive without any problem.
Should be the same for any linux computer.
> >The inconsistent GUI is one of linux/unix problems at the desktop.
>
> No, its one of Windows user's problems with Linux at the desktop.
> Nobody said you had to use programs with different GUIs, widgets,
> metaphors or abstractions, on your or any single desktop, or across
> multiple desktops. But nobody said you had a right to whine because
> every possible program didn't look and work just the way you want it to.
> If a program is too inconsistent for you to find efficient, feel free to
> not use it.
You realize the meaning of constuctive criticism?
If I don't like a program, I'm not likely to use it.
I would love to be able to use linux on the desktop, but those problems are
preventing me from doing this.
When I'm pointing out those problems, I'm told to stop using linux.
Where is the logic in that?
> >You can get away with this in the server market, where the users of the
OS
> >are suppose to know what they are doing, and don't usually care about
GUI.
> >But in the desktop? I don't think so.
>
> Well, you'd be wrong. After all, Microsoft didn't get everyone using
> the same GUI by making the best one they could; it took several
> anti-trust violations, at least, to ensure that Windows was familiar to
> everybody who used a PC.
I'm wrong? Assuming that you are referring to the above sentece, how?
Who the hell is talking about how windows got to be so popular? I wasn't
even close to the subject?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:05:58 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > echo format c:/q/y > c:\autoexec.bat >> null
> > > >
> > > > Guess what happens when you reboot?
> > > >
> > > > Not very secure.
> > >
> > > So, Win scripting host -> insecure
> > > batch files -> insecure
> > > windows -> I think you can see the pattern emerging.
> >
> > BTW, that sort of thing wouldn't work on NT, you know this, right?
> > 9x insecute? who would argue with you?
> > The fact that *everyone* is root/administrator is a bad idea to start
with.
>
> Actually, I'm not really sure it even works on 98, as format prompts for
> information/confirmation. /Y isn't an option as far as I'm aware. But
> of course, there'd be nothing to stop you making a format program of your
> own and running that from autoexec.
echo del c:\windows\system.dat > authoexec.bat >> null
Good bye system, that would work on 98.
> How far would you get creating a disk-corruption tool for NT and sticking
> it in the registry? I imagine it would be quite possible to use the
> getadmin exploit for NT4 to add this app and allow it to run on boot...
> but I'm hardly a guru on NT's internals.
If you've a getadmin exploit, you are already in control of the system, in
which case you can do anything.
But NT doesn't have anything like autoexec.bat, as far as I know.
You could always try to load as a service, of course, but in this part of
boot, the registery is already accessed and probably undeletable.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:07:51 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Of course not, 2000 doesn't assume that if you have access (physical or
> > otherwise) you are suddenly all-mighty god and obeys your every command.
> > Beside, autoexec.bat only work for 95/98 anyway, ME wouldn't be affected
by
> > this.
>
> I thought ME still used config.sys and autoexec.bat, they just didn't
> exist by default? I wouldn't know, since I refuse to install a DOS based
> OS that cripples MY access to DOS.
> "Let's make an OS change that has no use other than disabling LOADLIN for
> those linux geeks"
ME = Moron Edition
It's MS attempt to retaliate to AOL in the most stupid users market.
> > Someone please find a win95 machine that require a logon.
> > Type nothing to the logon screen, click ctrl+esc. you get full and
> > unrestricted access to the system. You *never* logon.
> > (won't work on 98, btw)
>
> If the machine is on a network, I believe you can require a network
> validated login, but there's ways around everything MS have done...
Nope, if the machine is on a network, you might be uanble to access the
network, but you'll have full access to the machine itself. (without have to
login)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:09:04 +0200
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:31:28 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Batch files?
> >
> >echo format c:/q/y > c:\autoexec.bat >> null
> >
> >Guess what happens when you reboot?
> >
> >Not very secure.
> >
>
> You have write perms to system files as a user? oh, right, windows...
sorry...
On 9x? You've access to everything you want.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:10:26 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >
> >> >Anyway, it doesn't matter, most programs didn't use it.
> >> >INI files where the way it went.
> >> >And it went *badly*
> >>
> >> In comparison to the registry, it was a piece of cake. In some minor
> >> respects, even better than Unix resource files, though by no means
> >> anywhere near as extensive. The registry gets nearly as complex as
> >> resource files (especially X stuff) but shouldn't.
> >
> >IIRC, there were limits to how much you could put in an INI file (64KB, i
> >think) because of the API that they were using, I believe.
>
> So? Why on earth would you need more than 64K in a single ini file?
How the hell am I supposed to know?
Apperentely it was an annoying limiting feature.
I read is in several places that one of 3.11 shortcoming was in not being
able to process more than 64K ini files.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:18:05 +0200
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:43:27 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:56:09 +0200,
> >> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> brought forth the following words...:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> > runas command.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you give some details? There's no trace of runas in NT on-line
> >> >> doc, I tried help runas and I got sort of " no help available for
> >runas,
> >> >> try runas /?". I tried runas /? to be told that /? is neither an
> >> >> executable nor a batch file. Maybe it does a lot, but documentation
> >> >> appears a bit concise!
> >> >
> >> >Start>Run>Help>Index
> >> >Write "runas", and it will take you to the runas CLI & GUI
explanations.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Doesn't sound like the help system is very integrated does it?
> >
> >Ha? What do you mean, not very integrated?
> >
>
> I mean that only one way to get help worked, for a command that came with
the
> system.
runas /?
Isn't good enough?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
