Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Booming or Fuming? Are You Alive? Or Are You Fading Away?!

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
October 28, 2004 9:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

******* Are YOU Booming Or Fuming? *******

There is nothing that will stand without a Sure Foundation.

Although it seems easy to write a quick script in great haste
with no documentation to solve today's urgent problem...
it becomes a horrifying mess later when you (or someone else)
have to reap that nightmare code which you have sown!

*******

Joe Fumer suddenly cries out,

"I just can't see why I need to spend the time!
It's ONLY a little batch file!!"

"Well..., Joe...

Remember that quick backup script that you thought
was working but it turned out that only changed
files were being copied each night?!

A Sure Foundation would have shined the light on
that problem the first day!"

"OK. Tell me more."

*******

If you're stuck in the Pit of Pity,
wasting your precious time slugging
through the Crater of Confusion...

___ DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! ___

The confidence and reliability that we have built with
our Command Library has opened a new world for Windows
System Administrators. It is no longer necessary to
write a confusing mess of tangled code. The resources
in the Library allow self-documenting shell scripts
that really work!

One brick at a time, we are building a Tower of Knowledge
for writing .bat/.cmd files. A comprehensive

Single File Solution,

filled to the brim with answers for the most grievous
tribulations that face the Windows Admin each day,
while still retaining the look and feel of a simple
batch file. And we're doing it without third party
utilities of any kind!

You only need one file---NTCmdLib.cmd!

So leave that old darkness of confusion at the foot of
Mount Knowledge and follow the Path of Understanding
to the TOP, where clearness reigns!

*******

There's been a Flying Rumor going around about Big Things
coming, and we can now confirm that it's true!

There ARE new Advanced and Expert Libraries coming!

Here's a taste of what we have prepared!

*******

The shining star of our Command Library is the
"Mounted Command", or Mt/\Cmd for short.

This is a section of Reliable, Cross-Platform Scripting Code
that has been optimized and compressed into a single line.
Then, this little jewel is saved to an environment variable
for instant access. The variable is named to "sound like what
it does" so when you use it in your script, the script becomes
self-documenting!

For example, the code for the command .GetFree is stored in the
variable %.GetFree%. This command retrieves the free space of
the current disk drive, displays it to the console, and saves
the value to variable %#Free%.

More info about .GetFree is at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/MtCmds/GetValue/GetFree.htm).

*******

One of our biggest challenges in constructing these commands
is that there was not an easy way to specify parameters.
The object of the command's actions had to be determined by
one of three methods.

1. Prefixing the arguments before the Mt/\Cmd

COPY Source Destination %.Silent%

2. Appending the arguments after the Mt/\Cmd

%.TimeEcho% Job started on Server1

3. Implying the argument based on some known parameter
of the console window at the time of execution.
For example, .GetFree reports on the current drive.

CD /D C:\
%.GetFree%

*******

When the required task had to "parse" a parameter,
we always needed multiple lines of code and had to
implement the next best thing: a $FUNCTION within
the Command Library.

You still call the $FUNCTION with a one line command

%.Call% $FUNCTION Parm1 Parm2 [...]

But a trip to the disk drive, and through the
Command Library was required, which is slightly
slower than our cached Mt/\Cmd code.

*******

But what if we could change the parameters anywhere inside
a command, while still having the code "preloaded" and
instantly available?! Well--now we can!! The answer is the
Twin^^Peaks MountCommand, or M^^C for short.

And it's a major leap over the wall!

In essence, this is a two-step command.

Step 1: Load the input variable with one or more parameters

Step 2: Execute the M^^C while dynamically expanding the
input variable from Step 1.

For CONSISTENCY, the input variable name is always the same as
the Twin^^Peaks command name, without the "." prefix.

Let's look at an example.

*******

A frequent SysAdmin need is to check the accessibility of a remote
system by using the native Ping utility. A new M^^C called .Alive
provides a CONSISTENT self-documenting method to check one machine,
a list of machines or an entire range of IP addresses.

The variable which contains the input is called, of course, %Alive%.

The scripting code is stored in variable %.Alive%.

Since the input is expanded at runtime, you can set the input value
and run the command within the same line of code! Delayed Variable
Expansion is not necessary, allowing full compatibility across
NT/2K/XP/K3. The self-documenting code looks like this:

FOR /L %%A IN (1,1,254) DO @(
(SET "Alive=10.7.7.%%A")
(%.Alive%)
)

..Alive takes the internal Ping command up on Mount Knowledge!
The code above will check the entire address range from
10.7.7.1 through 10.7.7.254, reporting on each address in turn.

But it get even better than that!

Success is reported to STDOUT, failure is reported to STDERR.
So, to see only the addresses that are active, suppress STDERR
using the %.Kity% {Keep-It-To-Yourself] command.

FOR /L %%A IN (1,1,254) DO @(
(SET "Alive=10.7.7.%%A")
(%.Alive% %.Kity%)
)

To see only the machines that are inaccessible,
suppress STDOUT using the %.Quiet% command.

FOR /L %%A IN (1,1,254) DO @(
(SET "Alive=10.7.7.%%A")
(%.Alive% %.Quiet%)
)

Additional examples are on the pre-release ".Alive Page" at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/MtCmds/CrystalClear/Alive.htm).

There is also a link there to download the pre-release code
and test it on your machine.

To look up the syntax of any other "Mounted Commands"
used in the examples, see the Master Catalog at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/MasterCatalog.asp).

*******

Joe Fumer has been reading intently and thinking about
the batch he uses to check the company's server farm.

"You mean--uh--you mean, I can replace all of my

Ping | Find "Reply"

stuff with something like:

FOR /F %%A IN (FumerFarm.txt) DO @(
(SET "Alive=%%A")
(%.Silent% %.Alive%)
(%.ifNotOK% ECHO:Meltdown on Server %%A!)
)

"Yes! YES!! Y-E-S!!!"

"And I can run it on any machine in the house?!
Even my old NT4 Servers?!"

"You sure can, Joe!
You're really soakin' up that knowledge now!"

"I see the light! I see the light!
How do I sign up? When can I get my hands
on that new Command Library?!"

*******

The new Command Libraries are nearing final trials!

When they come out as *Pure^Gold*,
we'll release them to the world!

The clock is ticking, so you better start clicking!!!

Make speed over to "The Almost Free Price List"!
at (http://TheSystemGuard.com/AlmostFree.asp)

D-O I-T N-O-W !!!

Or risk being left behind in the fumes!

*******

This is the public version of "Booming or Fuming?".

To get your own copy, which includes special offers,
available ONLY to subscribers, go to
(http://BoomingOrFuming.com). It's FREE!

Space is limited and time is short, so reserve your spot today!

*******

Communication Is Business! We Master It With Knowledge!

COME ON UP WITH US!

And Congratulations On Your Decision To
RISE ABOVE
THE REST!!!

*******

-tsg
__________________________________________________________
Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com)
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 3:57:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hallo guard,

> So leave that old darkness of confusion at the foot of
> Mount Knowledge and follow the Path of Understanding
> to the TOP, where clearness reigns!

From over here it really seems the religious right is getting the upper
hand in the US :-)

> while still retaining the look and feel of a simple
> batch file. And we're doing it without third party
> utilities of any kind!

Am I dense or what? I still have to download from you (a 3rd party, if I
ever saw one) a file that could be called "utility" without any qualms.

If you really meant your fire and brimstone sermon humorous, as I
suspect, I missed some smileys thrown in.

> For example, the code for the command .GetFree is stored in the
> variable %.GetFree%. This command retrieves the free space of
> the current disk drive, displays it to the console, and saves
> the value to variable %#Free%.

Using 4DOS, the info you seek can be accessed using the @diskfree[]
function, with options to specify drive, size of free space in Bytes,
Kilo- or Megabytes.

> COPY Source Destination %.Silent%

4DOS' Copy command has a /Q (quiet) switch
>
> 2. Appending the arguments after the Mt/\Cmd

> %.TimeEcho% Job started on Server1

ECHO Job started on server at %_time

> 3. Implying the argument based on some known parameter
> of the console window at the time of execution.
> For example, .GetFree reports on the current drive.
>
> CD /D C:\
> %.GetFree%

See above.

And so on, and so on....

You are really reinventing the wheel, which might be nice if it was much
sleeker. But your method is sadly much more clumsy than 4DOS, and from
what I've seen 4DOS can easily match each of your examples.

> The clock is ticking, so you better start clicking!!!
>
> Make speed over to "The Almost Free Price List"!
> at (http://TheSystemGuard.com/AlmostFree.asp)

4DOS is totally _FREE_

> D-O I-T N-O-W !!!
>
> Or risk being left behind in the fumes!

Do you sell snake oil or batch enhancers?

> Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
> You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
> GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
> (http://TheSystemGuard.com)

Hallelujah, and all the rest. :-(


--
Mit freundlichem Gruß,

Klaus Meinhard
October 29, 2004 10:12:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Klaus Meinhard" wrote
>
> Am I dense or what? I still have to download from you (a 3rd party, if I
> ever saw one) a file that could be called "utility" without any qualms.
>

The single .cmd file which is a Command Library
consists of ONLY scripting code using ONLY
the native commands and utilities that are present
on all NT-based operating systems.

It is a highly optimized and extremely intelligent batch file.

It is NOT--a third party utility.

In practice, it has been accepted and used in the same
manner as retrieving scripting code from a newsgroup or
other online forum. Only much better.

The sysadmin can actually understand how the code works,
can learn at their own pace in as much detail as their
time schedule permits, and can extend the Command Library
by creating their own "Mounted Commands".

This makes a script look like the one at this link.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot...).
That application (Snapshot) is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.

*******

The vocal minority that post answers in public newsgroups
do not represent the vast majority of sysadmins. No matter
how good the answer, it is always specific to today's crisis
and does NOT provide a foundation to move forward.

Finding 1000 answers to a question after "Googling" does not
give someone an answer. Just more questions. And every
time the same question is answered again, in a slightly
different way, the next search returns even more hits.

Libraries of solutions are common in most programming languages.

Before we released ours publicly in late 2002, the world of
batch scripting, arguably the one with the most non-programmers,
did not have one. Now it does. And there's no turning back.

*******

The reason for the HUGE success of the Command Library
is that there are no changes of any kind needed to run
a script that uses library commands.

No installation.
No uninstallation.
No multiple files to keep track of.
No "my script needs xxx utility to run".
No "do step1 for NT, step2 for 2000"

One line loads the entire Library:

CALL [drive:][path]ntlib.cmd /Init
or
CALL \\server\sharename\ntlib.cmd /Init

And, since the Sure Foundation is in place to support
virtually unlimited resources, we can continue to extend
the features without sacrificing performance, and while
maintaining ONLY ONE FILE to keep track of.

You write your script ONE TIME.
You solve your problem ONE TIME.
You take the solution and use it again and again.

And...you actually understand the code!

*******

If you're a small network "part-time" admin with limited
time for learning anything new, you get self-documenting
scripts that build on your basic knowledge of batch
scripting without adding any complexity to your life.

If you're in a larger network, you get a standard
set of tools to use in login scripts and other
administrative scripting that helps to keep all of
your departmental sysadmins on the same page.
The more experienced ones can share their knowledge
with those that are learning without having to explain
every detail of convoluted shell scripting command syntax.

And, if you're an integrator or a consultant, you get to
build a scripting toolbox that can run on any of your
clients machines, including those "no 3rd party software"
boxes. Best of all, you can customize anyone of your
scripts, turn it over to the local sysadmin, and they'll
actually be able to understand what you wrote AND
maintain it themselves when you're gone.

*******

>
> You are really reinventing the wheel, which might be nice if it was much
> sleeker. But your method is sadly much more clumsy than 4DOS, and from
> what I've seen 4DOS can easily match each of your examples.
>
> 4DOS is totally _FREE_
>

4DOS is a binary executable. There are many solutions of
this type. Most admins have a toolbox full of small
utilities to perform command line administration.

Even when using external tools is allowed, the growing toolbox
of utilities can be difficult to manage. Especially in large
sites where multiple admins use different tools to solve the
same problems. Not only is this redundant work, but it limits
the ability to reuse the corporate resource (their scripting code)
in another department.

The Command Library is an NT-based shell script that requires
no other resources besides itself to provide it's services.
It is an entirely new way of writing shell scripts.

The functionality of many separate tools is integrated
into ONE FILE, including an expandable help system that
does not impact the performance of the code. And, it's
constantly being updated to the same features as many
command line tools, without downloading anything and
without having to keep track of multiple single-purpose
tools from multiple authors.

The Command Library, with it's Sure Foundation, is the
result of thousands of hours of coding and testing as
well as over 20 years of knowledge in how people
actually maintain networks and systems at all levels.

The Advanced Library is FREE for unlimited
personal or commercial use.
(http://ntlib.com)

The Expert Library is "Almost Free" at $9 or less.
Price breaks start at qty 5, and the cost can get
as low as $2/system for larger sites.
(http://NTCmdLib.com)

*******

The world of NT-based shell scripting now has a
Command Library with hundreds of highly optimized
cross-platform solutions. THERE IS NO TURNING BACK!

You can stay where you are, or you can...

COME ON UP WITH US!

And Congratulations On Your Decision To
RISE ABOVE
THE REST!!!

*******

-tsg

/-----------------+---------------+----------------------\
| COMPATIBILITY | CLARITY | SPEED |
| Write code ONCE | Make it clear | THEN...Make it fast! |
\-----------------+---------------+----------------------/
400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/default.asp#MasterCommandList)
Related resources
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 6:01:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

guard,

> The single .cmd file which is a Command Library
> consists of ONLY scripting code using ONLY
> the native commands and utilities that are present
> on all NT-based operating systems.
>
> It is a highly optimized and extremely intelligent batch file.
>
> It is NOT--a third party utility.

I'm always asking myself who is the second party in this case, but
anyway: anything one has not written himself is a third party utility in
my definition, but religious convictions vary :-)

> In practice, it has been accepted and used in the same
> manner as retrieving scripting code from a newsgroup or
> other online forum

.... which would be 3rd party code, too.

> This makes a script look like the one at this link.
> (http://TheSystemGuard.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot...).
> That application (Snapshot) is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.

Admittedly impressive :-)

Nonetheless you have to work within the limited scope of CMD.EXE, which
lacks many features that can be found even in a DOS command interpreter
like 4DOS.

--
Mit freundlichem Gruß,

Klaus Meinhard
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:34:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:01:42 +0200, "Klaus Meinhard"
<K_Meinhard@t-online.de> wrote:

>I'm always asking myself who is the second party in this case, but
>anyway: anything one has not written himself is a third party utility in
>my definition, but religious convictions vary :-)

The terminology is from legal contract language. In this case the
first and second parties are the user and Microsoft - I'm not sure
which is which, but I think the user would be the second party (based
on MS's insistance that it really owns and controls your OS and even
hardware).



T.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu)
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 10:09:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:clrr4k$lq6$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hallo guard,

<snip>

> > while still retaining the look and feel of a simple
> > batch file. And we're doing it without third party
> > utilities of any kind!
>
> Am I dense or what? I still have to download from you (a 3rd party, if I
> ever saw one) a file that could be called "utility" without any qualms.
>
> If you really meant your fire and brimstone sermon humorous, as I
> suspect, I missed some smileys thrown in.

There are not enough smileys in the world to make the megalomania seem
humourous - it remains just very sad.

Sadder still, this self-proclaimed saviour of all batch programmers seems
truly disinterested in anyone's opinion than his own to the point of never
really engaging in objective discussion.


/Al
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 10:11:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:cltbhn$ih4$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> guard,
>
> > The single .cmd file which is a Command Library
> > consists of ONLY scripting code using ONLY
> > the native commands and utilities that are present
> > on all NT-based operating systems.
> >
> > It is a highly optimized and extremely intelligent batch file.
> >
> > It is NOT--a third party utility.
>
> I'm always asking myself who is the second party in this case, but
> anyway: anything one has not written himself is a third party utility in
> my definition, but religious convictions vary :-)

A megalomaniac would be, by definition, unable to contemplate the
possibility that he is anything other than the first party, nor that there
are any parties other than himself.

/Al
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 10:12:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Ted Davis" <tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu> wrote in message
news:i6a5o0p0c0uorp5hshcvvd7m5am4lh5nej@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:01:42 +0200, "Klaus Meinhard"
> <K_Meinhard@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >I'm always asking myself who is the second party in this case, but
> >anyway: anything one has not written himself is a third party utility in
> >my definition, but religious convictions vary :-)
>
> The terminology is from legal contract language. In this case the
> first and second parties are the user and Microsoft - I'm not sure
> which is which, but I think the user would be the second party (based
> on MS's insistance that it really owns and controls your OS and even
> hardware).

In legal documents, the numbered parties would be named to avoid
ambiguities.

/Al
October 30, 2004 7:29:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Klaus Meinhard" wrote
> guard,
>
> > In practice, it has been accepted and used in the same
> > manner as retrieving scripting code from a newsgroup or
> > other online forum
>
> ... which would be 3rd party code, too.
>

Only until the person using it COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDS
the code. Then, they can customize it to their
particular needs and it is no longer third-party.

It is THEIR CODE to run on THEIR MACHINE.

But this is ONLY true if the sysadmin really understands
the code they have retrieved, and that they are now using.
The old way of...

-cut-and-paste-it
-and-it-works-right-now
-and-I-sort-of-get-it
-and-now-I-can-forget-it
-until-I-will-regret-it

....makes the code stay third-party!

Our Command Library is simply a very efficient way
to distribute this knowledge. It provides an
ever-increasing collection of commonly needed resources
using a standard syntax that "feels" like a batch file.

And it does this in a SINGLE FILE while staying within
the bounds of using ONLY native commands. In addition,
we use ONLY the Common Command Set which exists across
NT/2K/XP/K3.

This actually eliminates the need to write convoluted
code that is full of special cases and exceptions just
to get a script to work on multiple platforms. It
provides CONSISTENCY that is normally found only in
more advanced programming/scripting languages.

> > This makes a script look like the one at this link.
> > (http://TheSystemGuard.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot...).
> > That application (Snapshot) is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.
>
> Admittedly impressive :-)
>

Obviously, we agree.

You should try the Advanced Library and see for yourself.

> Nonetheless you have to work within the limited scope of CMD.EXE, which
> lacks many features that can be found even in a DOS command interpreter
> like 4DOS.
>

The limited scope of Cmd.exe and its related utilities
is the source of much fuming. But that is what is
installed on millions of systems around the world.
And these limitations are one of the primary reasons
to use a Command Library that extends and expands
this "limited scope" to a whole new world!

You can get The Full Story at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/NoMoreFuming.asp)

*******

-tsg
__________________________________________________________
Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com)
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 2:33:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

guard,

> Our Command Library is simply a very efficient way
> to distribute this knowledge. It provides an
> ever-increasing collection of commonly needed resources
> using a standard syntax that "feels" like a batch file.

.... if you feel you _must_ stay within the bounds of a rather limited
command processor, only because it comes free with the OS.

> And it does this in a SINGLE FILE while staying within
> the bounds of using ONLY native commands. In addition,
> we use ONLY the Common Command Set which exists across
> NT/2K/XP/K3.

.... so we are not on topic here :-)

> This actually eliminates the need to write convoluted
> code that is full of special cases and exceptions just
> to get a script to work on multiple platforms. It
> provides CONSISTENCY that is normally found only in
> more advanced programming/scripting languages.

These exact words could be an advert for 4NT, the (commercial) power
command processor for the NT/XT range of OSs.

>> Admittedly impressive :-)
>>
>
> Obviously, we agree.

.... but not as much as you seem to think. I'd much rather work with 4NT,
which allows painless (and short!) access to all internally available
info (the OS has much more info than CMD makes available easily),
provides logic structure elements like DO - ENDDO,
IFF - THEN - ELSE / ELSEIFF - ENDIFF, SWITCH - CASE - DEFAULT -
ENDSWITCH, GOSUB - RETURN, lots of inbuilt commands like TOUCH, LOG,
IFTP, SENDMAIL, GLOBAL, EXCEPT, for which _you_ would need external,
often 3rd party utils :-) . Note that most of these features are
available under free 4DOS too, that 4DOS runs not only on the DOS / WIN3
/WIN 9N /ME platforms, but quite well under NT / XP too.

> The limited scope of Cmd.exe and its related utilities
> is the source of much fuming. But that is what is
> installed on millions of systems around the world.

Obviously, we agree :-)

> And these limitations are one of the primary reasons
> to use a Command Library that extends and expands
> this "limited scope" to a whole new world!

If, for any reason, you are unable to use 4NT or the free 4DOS command
interpreter, your tools lib may come in handy.


--?
Klaus Meinhard

Free 4DOS download: http://download.jpsoft.com/4dos/4dos.exe

4DOS Installation FAQ:
http://groups.google.de/groups?hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwi...
November 1, 2004 7:39:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Klaus Meinhard" wrote
> guard,
>
> > Our Command Library is simply a very efficient way
> > to distribute this knowledge. It provides an
> > ever-increasing collection of commonly needed resources
> > using a standard syntax that "feels" like a batch file.
>
> ... if you feel you _must_ stay within the bounds of a rather limited
> command processor, only because it comes free with the OS.

The limited command processor (Cmd.exe), and it's associated
native utilities, suffer MUCH MORE from inconsistency across
platforms than from their perceived limitations. Many of
these "limitations" do not really exist, except in the minds
of those who write or use a product that claims to overcome
them.

For example, it is a common misconception that the length
of any single command line is limited under Cmd.exe.

However, this limitation is related to a physical line
of code, not a logical line. Except in cases where a
single chunk of data is greater than the line limit,
the native processor does just fine. It is quite
difficult to write, test and maintain a 3000 character
command that is on one physical line.

However, we have many "Mounted Commands" which are single
logical lines that are in excess of 40K when fully
commented! They are still processed as one command by
Cmd.exe under all NT-based operating systems. Their
performance is similar to "compiled code" because the
limitation of "reading one line at a time" that is
associated with "interpreted code" is effectively bypassed.

The interpreter makes ONE READ of 40,000+ bytes and then
executes the code!

> > This actually eliminates the need to write convoluted
> > code that is full of special cases and exceptions just
> > to get a script to work on multiple platforms. It
> > provides CONSISTENCY that is normally found only in
> > more advanced programming/scripting languages.
>
> These exact words could be an advert for 4NT, the (commercial) power
> command processor for the NT/XT range of OSs.
>

....as well a wide range of other options for scripting.

The difference is that the Command Library runs on every
NT-based machine, right out of the box! It enhances and
extends what's already there, without requiring ANYTHING
ELSE besides itself. In the process, it teaches the
SysAdmin how to write and maintain readable code with the
assurance that their efforts will not be in vain.

When they solve the problem, it will be solved for good.
The code that they write will be readable and consistent.

> I'd much rather work with 4NT,
> which allows painless (and short!) access to all internally available
> info (the OS has much more info than CMD makes available easily),

Short is not necessarily good.

Scripts automate things. That can be very good or VERY BAD!

We have to trust the computer to do the work. But a person
must provide detailed instructions to avoid MUCH FUMING!
Providing detailed instructions does not come naturally but
is learned over time, usually through much trial and effort.
After all, the script will do exactly what you tell it to do,
but not necessarily what you want it to do. Extensive
commenting and well structured code is essential to
maintaining any application over time.

Once again, the reason the library has been so well received,
is that it provides a well thought out structure that those
who are new to programming (in any language) can easily
understand. This is a VERY LARGE group of people.

For those used to writing in higher level languages that
occasionally need to write a shell script, the library
smoothes out the bumps of incompatibility that exist among
NT-Based OS's, allowing a well-documented, easily understood,
shell script to be written quickly.

The OS has an enormous amount of information that IS
available easily if:

1. you know where to look
2. you know how to get it out
3. you know how to (re)package it to meet your needs

There are thousands of products, both commercial and
free, that address this issue and are in the toolbox
of SysAdmins everywhere. Each one solves the problem
in a slightly different way, and behaves differently
under different conditions.

Our Command Library addresses the core problem of limited,
incompatible native command-line capabilities by providing
a SINGLE FILE that will eventually replace many of the tools
in the toolbox with one solution that behaves CONSISTENTLY.

We have already have started to make this information available
using our Command Library (over 400 commands to date)
and we have laid down the Sure Foundation to get the
rest of it.

*******

This is a BRAND NEW WORLD!

You don't have to slug through using outdated
ideas from the last millennium!

There is a MUCH BETTER way!

Try the Advanced Library FREE from (http://ntlib.com) or
the Expert Library ("Almost Free" from (http://NTCmdLib.com).

It WILL change your life!

*******

-tsg

/-----------------+---------------+----------------------\
| COMPATIBILITY | CLARITY | SPEED |
| Write code ONCE | Make it clear | THEN...Make it fast! |
\-----------------+---------------+----------------------/
400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/default.asp#MasterCommandList)
November 5, 2004 2:16:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

A few clarifications:

"Al Dunbar [MS-MVP]" wrote
>
> > > Our Command Library is simply a very efficient way
> > > to distribute this knowledge. It provides an
> > > ever-increasing collection of commonly needed resources
> > > using a standard syntax that "feels" like a batch file.
>
> The syntax required to use their product, while it may technically consist
> purely of statements processed completely by the native batch command
> processor, I can state that, for me at least, it does not "feel" at all
like
> a batch file.


For those who would like to see for themselves,
take a moment to see some FREE sample code at
(http://ntlib.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot.cmdsrc.h...).

The above application is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.
Request your FREE copy at (http://ntlib.com).

> IMHO, I believe that they don't want anyone else to stay with the free
> command processor - they want us to buy their third party product to layer
> on top of it.

The Advanced Command Library, as well as many of our other tools,
are completely FREE for personal or commercial use. The Expert
Versions of these tools are "Almost Free" and generally cost
less than $9 per system.

>
> > > And it does this in a SINGLE FILE while staying within
> > > the bounds of using ONLY native commands. In addition,
> > > we use ONLY the Common Command Set which exists across
> > > NT/2K/XP/K3.
>
> This seems a nice concept for an experiment, but one that has gone way off
> the rails.
>


The concept of standardized code libraries is common in
almost all programming languages. We have brought that
same vision to NT-based batch programming.

> just looking at increasing the hitcounts on their website, regardless of
the
> numbers they annoy in the process.


TheSystemGuard.com does not contain any advertising of any
kind. We are not interested in merely "hit count".

We feed the hungry with knowledge WHILE we teach the recipe!

<SNIP> without addressing the underlying problems.

The underlying problem is, of course, the inconsistent
nature of writing code, especially cross-platform
shell scripting code for Windows NT-based platforms.

This is made even more difficult by the fact that many of
those who write "simple batch files" are not experienced
with the "Syntax Ditches" of the shell scripting environment.

And, finally, the biggest problem of all is the enormous
volume of "FREE Answers" that can now be obtained from
everywhere. This is the real problem.

We address it by providing:

a CONSISTENT answer
in a CONSISTENT format
from a CONSISTENT source.

Solve the problem once and then go on to a different problem.

Those that actually USE the Command Library receive these
benefits and learn how to create their own CONSISTENT
solutions. They have "Risen Above The Rest"!

Progress is only made by those who are willing to change.

The "rest" get left behind.

<SNIP>>

> Let's face it, cmd and batch have their limitations. That is why we have
all
> developed our own coding style to insulate us from any iregularities. I
> choose to use my own batch subroutines, which I code and debug myself,
<SNIP>

Many others do not yet have the experience and/or
time to "code and debug" their own routines. And
while they are learning, they still need to solve
their immediate problems. Well-documented and
CONSISTENT code is the key to avoiding disaster.

There are many who can write code to solve just
about any problem, given the time. However, we
all use standardized code written by others for
common tasks. It saves time and money.

And it's just common sense.

I would rather type

COPY Source Destination

than to write 100 lines of code to copy
the file sector by sector, just because
I can. Especially, if I'm going to use
this same command over and over.


Our Command Library provides the Sure Foundation
that our customers build their houses on. It is
a COMPLETELY NEW way of writing shell scripts!

*******

-tsg
__________________________________________________________
Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com)
November 6, 2004 12:49:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Al Dunbar" wrote
> > The Advanced Command Library, as well as many of our other tools,
> > are completely FREE for personal or commercial use. The Expert
> > Versions of these tools are "Almost Free" and generally cost
> > less than $9 per system.
>
> Anyone who thinks that my statement that they want us to buy their product
> is disproved by the free components, or the seemingly low price (don't
> forget to multiply $9 by the number of workstations you have), knows
nothing
> of the concept of the "loss leader".

Of course we want people to purchase our
"Almost Free" products. And most of those
who actually try the FREE versions, do.

But there are also significant numbers of SysAdmins
around the world that use only the Completely FREE
Advanced Library and our other FREE tools to help
avoid fuming. And they also enjoy great success!

Many of the most frequent "Syntax Ditches" are
bridged in the Advanced Library. For example:

Determining the current OS and ServicePack
Renaming a file to the current date/time
Overcoming problems with delayed expansion

*******

The actual cost for the Expert Command Library starts
to drop at qty 5 or more. Our enterprise level clients
pay as low as $2/system! The Return On Investment is,
on average, less than ONE work day! More info is at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/AlmostFree.asp)

> >
> > The underlying problem is, of course, the inconsistent
> > nature of writing code, especially cross-platform
> > shell scripting code for Windows NT-based platforms.
> >
> > This is made even more difficult by the fact that many of
> > those who write "simple batch files" are not experienced
> > with the "Syntax Ditches" of the shell scripting environment.
> >
> > And, finally, the biggest problem of all is the enormous
> > volume of "FREE Answers" that can now be obtained from
> > everywhere. This is the real problem.
>
> There are germs of truth there, but...
>
> > We address it by providing:
> >
> > a CONSISTENT answer
> > in a CONSISTENT format
> > from a CONSISTENT source.
>
> >
> >> Let's face it, cmd and batch have their limitations. That is why we
have
> > all
> >> developed our own coding style to insulate us from any iregularities. I
> >> choose to use my own batch subroutines, which I code and debug myself,
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Many others do not yet have the experience and/or
> > time to "code and debug" their own routines. And
> > while they are learning, they still need to solve
> > their immediate problems. Well-documented and
> > CONSISTENT code is the key to avoiding disaster.
>
> I would really like to meet someone who lacked the time or inclination to
> *progress* by learning more about what they are basing their careers on
who
> have been turned into effective scripters through the use of your library.

Most, but not all, SysAdmins would like to learn more about
automating repetitive tasks through scripting. But having
the time to actually learn is not a given. A great many
are also wearing many other hats, given the responsibility
for System Administration, without being given the tools,
time and training to do the job. And, finally, there are
a great many other skills necessary for good System
Administration, besides coding scripts.

The working environment that is typical for the extremely
limited group of active posters and answerers to a worldwide
Internet Newsgroup is NOT AT ALL SIMILAR to the daily
trials experienced by those who read the group but never
ask anything for fear of being publicly humiliated if
they didn't "Google" properly before asking their question.

Even those who are brave enough to ask a question risk being
sternly admonished if they don't ask in exactly the right
group and in exactly the right way. And this is before
taking into account the even larger SysAdmin Community
who do not even know what a newsgroup is.

There is often quite a high price...for free advice.

For a more complete list of the types of
SysAdmins that we have encountered, see
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/SAProfiles.htm).

>
> > I would rather type
> >
> > COPY Source Destination
> >
> > than to write 100 lines of code to copy
> > the file sector by sector, just because
> > I can. Especially, if I'm going to use
> > this same command over and over.
>
> Sure, but I never asked you to do something that stupid. I have seen
people
> get carried away bending over backwards to eke out some batch script to do
> what to many would seem impossible. Some succeed, and to me, that is an
> indication of their enginuity, though not necessarily an indication that
> this was the best platform to use.
>

What makes shell scripting the platform of choice
is it's pervasiveness. The simple truth that a
well-documented cross-platform shell script will
run on ANY NT-based system, right out of the box,
is a very powerful reason for solving problems
this way.

This is similar to the fact that most web sites are
written to be optimally viewed with Internet Explorer.
There are better browsing platforms, but none that is
present on so many different systems. An extension
to IE that provides additional functionality is often
more likely to be used rather than changing an entire
organization to a new browser.

The Command Library builds on the existing software
base (Cmd.exe and it's associated utilities) and the
prevailing knowledge base (basic batch file skills)
without requiring new tools or new skill sets. Code
that is written using the library is self-documenting
and easily maintained, even by those with limited
knowledge and/or time.

With our Sure Foundation, we are, one by one, replacing
the need for a toolbox full of small .exe utilities with
A SINGLE .cmd FILE that provides the same features in a
CONSISTENT format.

We are also teaching the understanding of how this is done,
so those that use the library can extend it's features even
further in their own environment.

Solve the problem ONCE...completely.

Then, leave the repetition to the computer.

And go on to new challenges.

*******

Don't get stuck in the old way of...

-cut-and-paste-it
-and-it-works-right-now
-and-I-sort-of-get-it
-and-now-I-can-forget-it
-until-I-will-regret-it

....just because every one else does it that way.

*******

When the blind lead the blind,
they all fall into the ditch.

And every one is convinced that they
are going in the right direction.

Because they "think" that the person
in front of them can see!

Don't be a blind follower!

There IS a better way!

See (http://TheSystemGuard.com/NoMoreFuming.asp).

*******

-tsg

/-----------------+---------------+----------------------\
| COMPATIBILITY | CLARITY | SPEED |
| Write code ONCE | Make it clear | THEN...Make it fast! |
\-----------------+---------------+----------------------/
400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/defaut.asp#MasterCommandList
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 3:25:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, guard wrote:
[snip]
> But there are also significant numbers of SysAdmins
> around the world that use only the Completely FREE
> Advanced Library and our other FREE tools to help
> avoid fuming. And they also enjoy great success!
>
> Many of the most frequent "Syntax Ditches" are
> bridged in the Advanced Library. For example:
>
> Determining the current OS and ServicePack

I know my OS. Since I wouldn't know one ServicePack from another if one
ran up to me an bit me on the leg, I wouldn't know what to do with the
information if I had it.

> Renaming a file to the current date/time

Set ekkodate=YYYYMMDD
wet ekkotime=HOMI
for %%f in ( foo*.txt ) do ekko ren "%%f" "$d_$t_%%f"$, >>fooyou.bat
call fooyou.bat
del fooyou.bat

To get EKKO.COM, see:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Tips.html#Tip011

Or, using 4DOS, a one-liner typed at the command-line would do the job
(long line may warp with your newsreader):

for %f in ( foo*.txt ) do ren "%f" "%_year%@right[2,0%_month]%@right[2,0%_day]_%@right[2,0%_hour]%@right[2,0%_minute]_%f

> Overcoming problems with delayed expansion

My landlord had that problem with the furnace pipes in the building.

[snip]
> > > The underlying problem is, of course, the inconsistent
> > > nature of writing code, especially cross-platform
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > shell scripting code for Windows NT-based platforms.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's not cross-platform.

The Morris worm was cross-platform.

Writing a program that will compile correctly for a Linux box, a Windows
NT box, a Windows 95 box, a PC-DOS 3.3 machine, a Seiko running MP/M-86,
a Macintosh, a Texas Instruments Professional Computer and a VIC-20, now
*that* would really be cross-platform. (OK, you can leave out the VIC-20.)

[snip]
> Most, but not all, SysAdmins would like to learn more about
> automating repetitive tasks through scripting. But having
> the time to actually learn is not a given. A great many
> are also wearing many other hats, given the responsibility
> for System Administration, without being given the tools,
> time and training to do the job. And, finally, there are
> a great many other skills necessary for good System
> Administration, besides coding scripts.

.... starting with knowing how to pick the right free Linux or Un*x distro.

> The working environment that is typical for the extremely
> limited group of active posters and answerers to a worldwide
> Internet Newsgroup is NOT AT ALL SIMILAR to the daily
> trials experienced by those who read the group but never

If *anyone* else's environment is even remotely similar to mine
then I offer them my sincerest condolences.

> ask anything for fear of being publicly humiliated if
> they didn't "Google" properly before asking their question.

I try to be helpful by offering the links here:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Antispam.html#NOMEXU

[snip]
> What makes shell scripting the platform of choice
> is it's pervasiveness. The simple truth that a
> well-documented cross-platform shell script will
> run on ANY NT-based system, right out of the box,
> is a very powerful reason for solving problems
> this way.

That's not cross-platform. (See above.)

And, if your solution is for NT systems only then it may be
appropriate for alt.msdos.batch.nt but not for alt.msdos.batch
(but I think you have been told this before).

> This is similar to the fact that most web sites are
> written to be optimally viewed with Internet Explorer.

Mine is optimized for lynx. My protest pages that I replace my
home page with from time to time are *pessimized* for graphical
browsers. A sample[1]:

I'm Sorry, this page requires a NOFRAMES capable browser.

Download Lynx Here!

> There are better browsing platforms, but none that is
> present on so many different systems. An extension
> to IE that provides additional functionality is often
> more likely to be used rather than changing an entire
> organization to a new browser.

Extensions? Do you mean like CoolWebSearch or some other trojan or
browser hijacker of the week? Without the permission of the user?
Additional functionality includes redirecting the browser to porn sites,
stealing user passwords and email addresses from the user's computer and
relaying spam for porn and mortgage merchants half a continent away.

Anyone still using IE is either ignorant of the risks, extremely stupid,
or suffers from rules made by others who are ignorant or extremely stupid.

(Being ignorant is not bad. Insisting on remaining so after rejecting
clues that would cure that ignorance *is*.)

> The Command Library builds on the existing software
> base (Cmd.exe and it's associated utilities) and the
> prevailing knowledge base (basic batch file skills)
> without requiring new tools or new skill sets. Code
> that is written using the library is self-documenting
> and easily maintained, even by those with limited
> knowledge and/or time.
>
> With our Sure Foundation, we are, one by one, replacing
> the need for a toolbox full of small .exe utilities with
> A SINGLE .cmd FILE that provides the same features in a
> CONSISTENT format.

How is it better than 4DOS?

[snip]
> 400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
> (http://TheSystemGuard.com/defaut.asp#MasterCommandList

But I don't use NT. If I did, I would be in alt.msdos.batch.nt
and not in alt.msdos.batch. Why post this to alt.msdos.batch?
(I believe you have been asked this before.)

[1] My protest pages are linked to on my home page. See sig. They
are designed to be hostile for graphical browser users the same
way that badly-designed sites are hostile for text browser users.
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
"O'Reilly is to a system administrator as a shoulder length latex glove
is to a veterinarian." -- Peter da Silva in the scary devil monastery
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 11:46:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Norman L. DeForest" <af380@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:p ine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1041105230312.7224A-100000@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca..
..
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, guard wrote:
> [snip]
> > But there are also significant numbers of SysAdmins
> > around the world that use only the Completely FREE
> > Advanced Library and our other FREE tools to help
> > avoid fuming. And they also enjoy great success!
> >
> > Many of the most frequent "Syntax Ditches" are
> > bridged in the Advanced Library. For example:
> >
> > Determining the current OS and ServicePack
>
> I know my OS. Since I wouldn't know one ServicePack from another if one
> ran up to me an bit me on the leg, I wouldn't know what to do with the
> information if I had it.

No, but SysAdmins would.

[snip]
> > With our Sure Foundation, we are, one by one, replacing
> > the need for a toolbox full of small .exe utilities with
> > A SINGLE .cmd FILE that provides the same features in a
> > CONSISTENT format.
>
> How is it better than 4DOS?

Is 4DOS a small utility?


> [snip]
> > 400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
> > (http://TheSystemGuard.com/defaut.asp#MasterCommandList
>
> But I don't use NT.

That's a no brainer - Just don't download it.


> If I did, I would be in alt.msdos.batch.nt
> and not in alt.msdos.batch. Why post this to alt.msdos.batch?
> (I believe you have been asked this before.)

Becasue there are NT/2K/XP/K3 readers that do read and post to
alt.msdos.batch. If you don't want to see these posts any more, why not set
your superior newsreaders to filter them. You don't actually read Timo's
entire FAQ posts every two weeks, do you?

--
Todd Vargo (double "L" to reply by email)
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 4:44:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc.]

On 2004-11-06, Todd Vargo <toddvargo@alvantage.com> wrote:
>
> "Norman L. DeForest" <af380@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:p ine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1041105230312.7224A-100000@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca..
> .
>> How is it better than 4DOS?

> Is 4DOS a small utility?

4DOS is a replacement for the DOS command shell: command.com
There is also a version for NT/Win2k/XP called 4NT that replaces cmd.exe

4DOS/4NT support all the commands in the original command shell, and many,
many more. I've found it to be very useful for any serious command line
work and scripts.

Check it out at http://www.jpsoft.com

--

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 6:07:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Todd Vargo wrote:

> "Norman L. DeForest" <af380@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:p ine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1041105230312.7224A-100000@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca..
> .
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, guard wrote:
[snip]
> > > With our Sure Foundation, we are, one by one, replacing
> > > the need for a toolbox full of small .exe utilities with
> > > A SINGLE .cmd FILE that provides the same features in a
> > > CONSISTENT format.
> >
> > How is it better than 4DOS?
>
> Is 4DOS a small utility?

4DOS is a (now free, formerly shareware) complete replacement for
COMMAND.COM with many more features. It also runs on Windoes NT but to
take advantage of all of the features of Windows NT, 4NT (shareware) from
the same people who created 4DOS is an even more powerful choice.

An example of the power of 4DOS: Find all files on the hard drive with an
'x' or 'z' in the name that were created between October 12 and October 16
this year between midnight and six o'clock in the morning that have a size
between 36KB and 42KB. That's a one-liner in 4DOS:

c:\>dir /s /[d10-12-2004,10-16-2004] /[t00:00,06:00] /[s36K,42K] *[xz]*.*

Even the CLS command is enhanced:

c:\>cls bright white on blue

It gets a mention on my web site and is Tip Number One on my Computer
Hints, Tips and Utilities page:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Tips.html#Tip001
as well as having a small page dedicated to it:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/4d.html

> > [snip]
> > > 400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
> > > (http://TheSystemGuard.com/defaut.asp#MasterCommandList
> >
> > But I don't use NT.
>
> That's a no brainer - Just don't download it.
>
>
> > If I did, I would be in alt.msdos.batch.nt
> > and not in alt.msdos.batch. Why post this to alt.msdos.batch?
> > (I believe you have been asked this before.)
>
> Becasue there are NT/2K/XP/K3 readers that do read and post to
> alt.msdos.batch. [...]

There are probably a lot of NT users who read and post to the
alt.fan.pratchett newsgroup as well. That would still not make
it appropriate for you to post there.

It's just that I have seen a lot of people asking Windows NT-specific
questions here and someone invariably points them to alt.msdos.batch.nt
as being the appropriate venue for their posts. Since your posts are also
Windows NT-specific, I'm wondering why you think you rate special
privileges.

> [...] If you don't want to see these posts any more, why not set
> your superior newsreaders to filter them. You don't actually read Timo's
> entire FAQ posts every two weeks, do you?

Please tell me how to set Pine 3.95 to filter anything.


Norman "still boggling at the idea of a computer
professional who has never heard of 4DOS" De Forest
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
"O'Reilly is to a system administrator as a shoulder length latex glove
is to a veterinarian." -- Peter da Silva in the scary devil monastery
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 2:13:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.msdos.batch,alt.msdos.batch.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Norman,

> [snip]
> > > > With our Sure Foundation, we are, one by one, replacing
> > > > the need for a toolbox full of small .exe utilities with
> > > > A SINGLE .cmd FILE that provides the same features in a
> > > > CONSISTENT format.
> > >
> > > How is it better than 4DOS?
> >
> > Is 4DOS a small utility?
>
> 4DOS is a (now free, formerly shareware)
snip...

DUH, I know what 4DOS is, silly. My response was in line with the quoted
text above which makes no inference to being better than 4DOS. IMO, you are
taking Guard's posts a bit too personally.


> Since your posts are also
> Windows NT-specific, I'm wondering why you think you rate special
> privileges.

I most certainly do not originate Windows NT-specific discussions in
alt.msdos.batch. Obviously, you can not differentiate between Guard and
myself and you obviously are not treating this crosspost as a crosspost
either.


>
> > [...] If you don't want to see these posts any more, why not
set
> > your superior newsreaders to filter them. You don't actually read Timo's
> > entire FAQ posts every two weeks, do you?
>
> Please tell me how to set Pine 3.95 to filter anything.

Sorry, these groups are not intended for newsclient assistance. Please have
the common sense to not ask for off-topic instructions in the same
discussion you are topicality policing.

--
Todd Vargo (double "L" to reply by email)
!