ruas in the same console [Win32 API]

Prev: question about files creation and access
Next: WAVEHDR lpstr

From: Tim Meddick on 22 Jan 2010 13:21

I appreciate what you are saying but, concerning the level of detail in technical
background - don't you think there's a line to be drawn somewhere?

Or is it right for people to always get drawn into arguments over sub-atomic detail
so that eventually every other person involved has no idea what is really being
discussed, and, what is more, has no interest in it either?

Surly, the most important point is to try to actually answer, in as practical way as
possible, the original question - and not get so carried away that that is forgotten!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

"sali" <sali(a)euroherc.hr> wrote in message
news:%23VGKS5zmKHA.5524(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick(a)gawab.com> je napisao u poruci interesnoj
> grupi:%239C9PYumKHA.4936(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> I believe that, in these groups, one should endeavour to tailor the answers to the
>> general level of detail that was in the Original Poster's question.
>
> there are allways 'short' and 'long' answers. 'short' consisting of 'yes' or 'no',
> and 'long' ones with background explanations
>
> regarding the original question: "am i missing something to be able to run 'runas'
> in the same console inside 'cmd.exe'", it seems that it isn't possible [there are
> no hidden undocumented trick, or registry tweaking], but all infos presented here,
> i find usefull
>
> although i had not reposted for weeks, i monitor the thread
>
>
>

From: Michael Wojcik on 22 Jan 2010 10:19

Tim Meddick wrote:
> I find your comments to be overly critical and generally
> unhelpful.

A shame, but I'm afraid I can't help you with that.

I am concerned, though. If you found *my* post - the very soul of
sweet reason, unaccountably missing the vulgarity, outrage, attacks ad
hominem and ad baculum, and other brickbats of the time-honored flame
- "overly critical", and so much so that you felt compelled to
respond, then I fear you are not temperamentally suited to reading
Usenet. At the very least, you will find it an exhausting and tiresome
experience.

> I believe that, in these groups, one should endeavour to tailor the
> answers to the general level of detail that was in the Original Poster's
> question.

You are welcome to your belief. I have been reading and posting to
Usenet since 1991, and I have been studying the medium as a rhetoric
scholar since 1995, and I have different beliefs.

> In that, you have totally over-complicated your answer to the extent
> that I think the OP will have not the slightest clue of what you are on
> about.

The strength of Usenet - indeed, its reason for existence - has always
been network effects, and particularly the ability of a pool of
respondents with varying expertise to bring new insights to a subject.
Consequently, the broad convention here has always been to assume the
OP, and other readers, are either competent to understand technical
responses, or equipped to achieve such competency if they are so
inclined. Assuming they are uneducated dimwits is neither polite nor
productive.

> We give advice according to the level of knowledge we possess and, with
> reference to this, it is obvious that David Trimboli knows what he is
> talking about.

I am not at all sure that *is* obvious, though you state it in such
vague terms it's not clear to me precisely what you mean. In any case,
though, what Mr Trimboli, or anyone else here, *knows* is beside the
point. This is Usenet; it is not telepathy, or an interrogation, or a
job interview. All we have is what people *post*.

> It is of little interest to the rest of us

Out of curiosity, when did the massed readers of three groups elect
you their representative?

> to witness an argument on
> obscure detail that becomes ever more in-depth until the relevance to
> anything useful becomes lost.

And by what special insight do you determine what is relevant to
everyone reading the thread?

> In short, I think that you have lost the benefit of overview that could
> have made your contribution of any value to the most important person
> here - the one who asks for help in the first place.

Your understanding of Usenet is remarkable. Probably indefensible, but
remarkable nonetheless.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

From: Al Dunbar on 23 Jan 2010 13:54

There definitely is line to be drawn, but whose should it be? And should the
line exclude disagreements about where it should be drawn?

/Al

"Tim Meddick" <timmeddick(a)gawab.com> wrote in message
news:eVCEw#4mKHA.5528(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I appreciate what you are saying but, concerning the level of detail in
> technical background - don't you think there's a line to be drawn
> somewhere?
>
> Or is it right for people to always get drawn into arguments over
> sub-atomic detail so that eventually every other person involved has no
> idea what is really being discussed, and, what is more, has no interest in
> it either?
>
> Surly, the most important point is to try to actually answer, in as
> practical way as possible, the original question - and not get so carried
> away that that is forgotten!
>
> ==
>
> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
>
>
>
>
> "sali" <sali(a)euroherc.hr> wrote in message
> news:%23VGKS5zmKHA.5524(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick(a)gawab.com> je napisao u poruci interesnoj
>> grupi:%239C9PYumKHA.4936(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> I believe that, in these groups, one should endeavour to tailor the
>>> answers to the general level of detail that was in the Original Poster's
>>> question.
>>
>> there are allways 'short' and 'long' answers. 'short' consisting of 'yes'
>> or 'no', and 'long' ones with background explanations
>>
>> regarding the original question: "am i missing something to be able to
>> run 'runas' in the same console inside 'cmd.exe'", it seems that it isn't
>> possible [there are no hidden undocumented trick, or registry tweaking],
>> but all infos presented here, i find usefull
>>
>> although i had not reposted for weeks, i monitor the thread
>>
>>
>>
>

From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 24 Jan 2010 23:38

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:%239C9PYumKHA.4936(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl"
type="cite">
I believe that, in these groups, one should endeavour to tailor
the answers to the general level of detail that was in the Original
Poster's question.

</blockquote>
The Perl newsgroups have been interesting sources of stock
responses, including the one with the chocolate-covered bananas and the
European currency systems.  Here's another one, from <code>comp.lang.perl.misc</code>,
that has been around for almost ten years, now: 

<blockquote>
Get real! This is a discussion group, not a helpdesk. You post
something, we discuss its implications.
</blockquote>
It is a valid point.  These are discussion groups, not
helpdesks.  We are volunteers, not paid support staff.  And
we most definitely are not restricted by some imaginary
bounds set by the "original poster", especially since such "original
posters" are here oftentimes because they don't know stuff,
including not even having proper definitions of their problems.  We are
certainly not restricted from pointing out where things are downright
wrong, just because you (not even M. Sali, but you) think that the
subject is a technical one.  These are technical newsgroups. 
If you cannot handle or don't like technical subjects, and concomitant
discussions, which will include people who actually do
know what they're talking about giving all of those nitty-gritty
technical details of how things can and do work that you think to be
"unhelpful" and "complicated", then you've subscribed to the wrong
newsgroups. 

<blockquote cite="mid:%239C9PYumKHA.4936(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl"
type="cite">
We give advice according to the level of knowledge we possess and,
with reference to this, it is obvious that David Trimboli knows what he
is talking about.

</blockquote>
The thing is: That isn't obvious, and you really should have seen
that.  What should have been obvious to you is that M.
Trimboli is wrong, given the simple existence of a utility that not
only does what M. Trimboli is saying to be impossible, but even has the
same name as the utility that the original poster asked for a Windows
equivalent to.  There really isn't even the excuse you're making that
this discussion is hard to follow.  "On the contrary, there exists a
program that does that very thing, and there it is.  Such utilities
work in the following fashion, and Win32 in fact works in the following
way, ..." isn't exactly a complex and abstruse argument. 

</body>
</html>

From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 24 Jan 2010 22:41

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:hjac6301tm1(a)news4.newsguy.com" type="cite">
It only inherits the parent shell's command history if the
shell makes provisions for that - typically by keeping the command
history in a file associated with the tty name, so the new child shell
can find it. 

</blockquote>
... which is unnecessary on Win32, since command history is not (in
the system-supplied command interpreter at any rate) a function of the
command interpreter program.
<blockquote cite="mid:hjac6301tm1(a)news4.newsguy.com" type="cite">
Since <code>cmd.exe</code> keeps its history in process private
memory, though, there's no way for the child <code>cmd.exe</code> to
inherit that.
</blockquote>
No, it really doesn't.  This is one place where the designs of the
Win32 API and of the POSIX API differ.  Console aliases and command
history are actually directly part of the console, not implemented
within individual command interpreter processes.  (Of course, for
command interpreters such as Take Command and 4NT, which implement
their own command editing, aliasing, and history mechanisms, they
are.)  There is a mostly undocumented console API (<code>AddConsoleAlias</code>,
<code>GetConsoleCommandHistory</code>, <code>SetConsoleHistoryInfo</code>,
and so forth) that is used by <code>CMD</code> for accessing them. 

</body>
</html>

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: question about files creation and access
Next: WAVEHDR lpstr