Create Folders and Write To Hard Disk Other than C:
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Tom Shelton on 10 Mar 2010 11:34 On 2010-03-10, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers > for >> � this API stuff isn't it. >> � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) >> � >> � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? >> � >> Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) > >> If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. >> > > Ah, the famous Paul C. context switcheroo. > > Let me see if I've got this straight. You've > just defended the choice of running VBScripts > (that are shelling to sysadmin applets) via your > 300 MB slop of superfluous wrappers, as > preferable to using the API for setting permissions. > > ...And you equate your 300 MB script hack with > using the VB intrinsic controls...because both > involve wrappers. > > I understand now. You're a binary thinker! Am > I actually having this conversation with a computer > program? .... Oh... my.... I'm so embarassed! > > Not sure why he would be advocating that - since it's trivial to set acls from within the framework (System.Security.AccessControl). I do it all the time from my custom deployment tool. -- Tom Shelton
From: Karl E. Peterson on 10 Mar 2010 14:49 Tom Shelton wrote: > On 2010-03-10, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers for >>> � this API stuff isn't it. >>> � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) >>> � >>> � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? >>> � >>> Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) >>> If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. >>> >> >> Ah, the famous Paul C. context switcheroo. >> >> Let me see if I've got this straight. You've >> just defended the choice of running VBScripts >> (that are shelling to sysadmin applets) via your >> 300 MB slop of superfluous wrappers, as >> preferable to using the API for setting permissions. >> >> ...And you equate your 300 MB script hack with >> using the VB intrinsic controls...because both >> involve wrappers. >> >> I understand now. You're a binary thinker! Am >> I actually having this conversation with a computer >> program? .... Oh... my.... I'm so embarassed! > > Not sure why he would be advocating that - since it's trivial to set acls > from within the framework (System.Security.AccessControl). I do it all the > time from my custom deployment tool. Because he was "answering" someone who wanted to do it with VB6!!! Y'know, the *charter* for this newsgroup. Jeeeeeez..... -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Tom Shelton on 10 Mar 2010 15:10 On 2010-03-10, Karl E Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > Tom Shelton wrote: >> On 2010-03-10, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers for >>>> � this API stuff isn't it. >>>> � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) >>>> � >>>> � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? >>>> � >>>> Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) >>>> If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. >>>> >>> >>> Ah, the famous Paul C. context switcheroo. >>> >>> Let me see if I've got this straight. You've >>> just defended the choice of running VBScripts >>> (that are shelling to sysadmin applets) via your >>> 300 MB slop of superfluous wrappers, as >>> preferable to using the API for setting permissions. >>> >>> ...And you equate your 300 MB script hack with >>> using the VB intrinsic controls...because both >>> involve wrappers. >>> >>> I understand now. You're a binary thinker! Am >>> I actually having this conversation with a computer >>> program? .... Oh... my.... I'm so embarassed! >> >> Not sure why he would be advocating that - since it's trivial to set acls >> from within the framework (System.Security.AccessControl). I do it all the >> time from my custom deployment tool. > > Because he was "answering" someone who wanted to do it with VB6!!! So, why is dotnet even in the conversation? > Y'know, the *charter* for this newsgroup. Jeeeeeez..... > Yeah? -- Tom Shelton
From: Karl E. Peterson on 10 Mar 2010 16:06 Tom Shelton wrote: > On 2010-03-10, Karl E Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >> Tom Shelton wrote: >>> On 2010-03-10, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers >>>>> for � this API stuff isn't it. >>>>> � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) >>>>> � >>>>> � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? >>>>> � >>>>> Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) >>>>> If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, the famous Paul C. context switcheroo. >>>> >>>> Let me see if I've got this straight. You've >>>> just defended the choice of running VBScripts >>>> (that are shelling to sysadmin applets) via your >>>> 300 MB slop of superfluous wrappers, as >>>> preferable to using the API for setting permissions. >>>> >>>> ...And you equate your 300 MB script hack with >>>> using the VB intrinsic controls...because both >>>> involve wrappers. >>>> >>>> I understand now. You're a binary thinker! Am >>>> I actually having this conversation with a computer >>>> program? .... Oh... my.... I'm so embarassed! >>> >>> Not sure why he would be advocating that - since it's trivial to set acls >>> from within the framework (System.Security.AccessControl). I do it all the >>> time from my custom deployment tool. >> >> Because he was "answering" someone who wanted to do it with VB6!!! > > So, why is dotnet even in the conversation? Rhetorical question? (If not, what should be the obvious answer is, because Paul's here!) >> Y'know, the *charter* for this newsgroup. Jeeeeeez..... > > Yeah? Yeah. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Tom Shelton on 10 Mar 2010 16:22
On 2010-03-10, Karl E Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > Tom Shelton wrote: >> On 2010-03-10, Karl E Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >>> Tom Shelton wrote: >>>> On 2010-03-10, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers >>>>>> for � this API stuff isn't it. >>>>>> � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) >>>>>> � >>>>>> � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? >>>>>> � >>>>>> Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) >>>>>> If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, the famous Paul C. context switcheroo. >>>>> >>>>> Let me see if I've got this straight. You've >>>>> just defended the choice of running VBScripts >>>>> (that are shelling to sysadmin applets) via your >>>>> 300 MB slop of superfluous wrappers, as >>>>> preferable to using the API for setting permissions. >>>>> >>>>> ...And you equate your 300 MB script hack with >>>>> using the VB intrinsic controls...because both >>>>> involve wrappers. >>>>> >>>>> I understand now. You're a binary thinker! Am >>>>> I actually having this conversation with a computer >>>>> program? .... Oh... my.... I'm so embarassed! >>>> >>>> Not sure why he would be advocating that - since it's trivial to set acls >>>> from within the framework (System.Security.AccessControl). I do it all the >>>> time from my custom deployment tool. >>> >>> Because he was "answering" someone who wanted to do it with VB6!!! >> >> So, why is dotnet even in the conversation? > > Rhetorical question? (If not, what should be the obvious answer is, > because Paul's here!) > Hmmm... maybe I need to read up the thread. I just was trying to figure out why someone was suggesting a call to a shell script to do something that can be done natively.... -- Tom Shelton |