OT: Copy PATH from Windows Explorer ??

Jim Thompson · Dec 22, 2004

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:13:12 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:47:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:54:21 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:26:28 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

Jim, I was unable to duplicate any instance of CopyThisPath replacing
a previously defined default action other than "Open with..." even
though I'd swear I saw it before my machine hung.

[snip]

Thaas, What you said finally sunk in... any file that has been "opened
with" and the box checked "Always use this program to open these
files" are what fail when CopyThisPath is activated. Files assigned
to a given executable during a program installation, such as .DOC,
continue to work.

...Jim Thompson

Thaas, Looks like a lost cause... got another snotty E-mail from
Jerry Campbell. He's just certain that there's no flaw in his
program.

But I just got my latest-version UltraEdit by FedEx, so I'll just toss
CopyThisPath as junk, and list it as "Not Recommended" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
Jim,

I use Multi-Edit. I tried the files you mentioned previously, .lib,
.inc, .cir, and .net. Using "Open with..." I established Multi-Edit
as the default tool for .inc and it worked fine. Thought I had a copy
of Ultra-Edit, but no such luck.

Maybe the problem lies with Ultra-Edit. How does the new version
fare?

Tom Haas

I'll load it later today and let you know.

But, at the very least, CopyThisPath must be doing something untoward
that confuses UltraEdit.

OK, Just confirmed, it's a conflict with UltraEdit, changing to
NotePad works. Now for some further detective work.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Spehro Pefhany · Dec 22, 2004

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:47:54 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:54:21 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:26:28 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

Jim, I was unable to duplicate any instance of CopyThisPath replacing
a previously defined default action other than "Open with..." even
though I'd swear I saw it before my machine hung.

[snip]

Thaas, What you said finally sunk in... any file that has been "opened
with" and the box checked "Always use this program to open these
files" are what fail when CopyThisPath is activated. Files assigned
to a given executable during a program installation, such as .DOC,
continue to work.

...Jim Thompson

Thaas, Looks like a lost cause... got another snotty E-mail from
Jerry Campbell. He's just certain that there's no flaw in his
program.

But I just got my latest-version UltraEdit by FedEx, so I'll just toss
CopyThisPath as junk, and list it as "Not Recommended" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Did your old copy have the yellow highlight on the cursor line? That
alone is worth the upgrade price, IMO.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

mark thomas · Dec 23, 2004

The artist formerly known as Jim Thompson wrote:

| I'll load it later today and let you know.
|
| But, at the very least, CopyThisPath must be doing something untoward
| that confuses UltraEdit.
|
| OK, Just confirmed, it's a conflict with UltraEdit, changing to
| NotePad works. Now for some further detective work.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, just use one of the 3 freeware path-copying
programs I posted earlier.

--
MT

To reply directly, take every occurrence of the letter 'y' out of my
address.

Jim Thompson · Dec 23, 2004

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:18:28 -0500, "mark thomas"
<marycoy4@execyulinky.comy> wrote:

The artist formerly known as Jim Thompson wrote:

| I'll load it later today and let you know.
|
| But, at the very least, CopyThisPath must be doing something untoward
| that confuses UltraEdit.
|
| OK, Just confirmed, it's a conflict with UltraEdit, changing to
| NotePad works. Now for some further detective work.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, just use one of the 3 freeware path-copying
programs I posted earlier.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Robert · Dec 26, 2004

(2) Any cute way, or utility I can buy, so that a right click on a
file name in Explorer will give a *complete* path that I can
copy/paste into a text file?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

I settled on ClipPath...

http://www.download.com/ClipPath/3000-2094_4-10050927.html?tag=free

I also tried CopyThisPath, but found conflicts with other programs I
use...

http://www.freetrialsoft.com/CopyThisPath-download-12971.html

...Jim Thompson

You're braver than I am (or less paranoid). I worry about what might be in
programs downloaded from the Internet. Or the conflicts they might cause
with the rest of what runs on the PC.

Robert

Chuck Harris · Dec 27, 2004

Tim Williams wrote:

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:zY2dnSXvk8nA6lTcRVn-tg@rcn.net...

That's nice Tim. What you are touting as a great advantage (lack of

permissions)

is the Achilles heel of 'doze.

Unless you use it for personal computing... which just so happens to be 90%
of the sales which M$ goes to...... but I digress...

Not at all Tim! The permissions structure is there to help protect the
important kernel functions from the user programs, and the user programs from
each other. It is a complete travisty that a user application can change the
system .DLL's. This "feature" is a major reason why if you ask two Windows
users what they think of windows, one will say it works perfectly, and the
other will say it crashes frequently.

The stability of your windows system all depends on what applications you have
loaded, and in what order.

Further windoze's lack of a permissions structure in its filesystem was acceptable
back in the days of real "personal computers", but now with internet access,
shared files, and multitasking, your computer isn't "personal" anymore. To
ward off these "villans", you have applied multiple layers of second party fixes
in the form of firewalls, virus checkers, spyware checkers, ... It is now like you
are riding on a tire that is made from nothing but patches. The air will get around
those patches somewhere. You would be far safer riding on a tire that was designed
from the beginning to hold air.

You keep fighting off my attempts to teach you a little bit about how secure
systems work, and why windoze isn't secure, or even safe. Put your mind to it,
and shuck off your youthful know-it-all nature, and you will gain a better
understanding. The concepts we are argueing over were developed on mainframe
computers more than 40 years ago. The windoze folks are just now discovering them.

-Chuck Harris (who programmed his first computer in 1970)

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su · Dec 27, 2004

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:QsqdnaHAGvw3vk3cRVn-jw@rcn.net...

Tim Williams wrote:
"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:zY2dnSXvk8nA6lTcRVn-tg@rcn.net...

That's nice Tim. What you are touting as a great advantage (lack of

permissions)

is the Achilles heel of 'doze.

Unless you use it for personal computing... which just so happens to
be 90%
of the sales which M$ goes to...... but I digress...

Not at all Tim! The permissions structure is there to help protect
the
important kernel functions from the user programs, and the user
programs from
each other. It is a complete travisty that a user application can
change the
system .DLL's. This "feature" is a major reason why if you ask two
Windows
users what they think of windows, one will say it works perfectly, and
the
other will say it crashes frequently.

The stability of your windows system all depends on what applications
you have
loaded, and in what order.

Further windoze's lack of a permissions structure in its filesystem
was acceptable
back in the days of real "personal computers", but now with internet
access,
shared files, and multitasking, your computer isn't "personal"
anymore. To
ward off these "villans", you have applied multiple layers of second
party fixes
in the form of firewalls, virus checkers, spyware checkers, ... It is
now like you
are riding on a tire that is made from nothing but patches. The air
will get around
those patches somewhere. You would be far safer riding on a tire that
was designed
from the beginning to hold air.

You keep fighting off my attempts to teach you a little bit about how
secure
systems work, and why windoze isn't secure, or even safe. Put your
mind to it,
and shuck off your youthful know-it-all nature, and you will gain a
better
understanding. The concepts we are argueing over were developed on
mainframe
computers more than 40 years ago. The windoze folks are just now
discovering them.

I'll agree to some extent with that. But I remember when PC/MS-DOS 2.1
got directories, and our mainframe still didn't have a way for a user to
do it in timeshare. Batch progs had it, tho - for obvious reasons.

> -Chuck Harris (who programmed his first computer in 1970)

Rich Grise · Dec 27, 2004

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:00:57 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:
"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:zY2dnSXvk8nA6lTcRVn-tg@rcn.net...

That's nice Tim. What you are touting as a great advantage (lack of

permissions)

is the Achilles heel of 'doze.

Unless you use it for personal computing... which just so happens to be 90%
of the sales which M$ goes to...... but I digress...

Not at all Tim! The permissions structure is there to help protect the
important kernel functions from the user programs, and the user programs from
each other. It is a complete travisty that a user application can change the
system .DLL's. This "feature" is a major reason why if you ask two Windows
users what they think of windows, one will say it works perfectly, and the
other will say it crashes frequently.

The stability of your windows system all depends on what applications you have
loaded, and in what order.

Further windoze's lack of a permissions structure in its filesystem was acceptable
back in the days of real "personal computers", but now with internet access,
shared files, and multitasking, your computer isn't "personal" anymore. To
ward off these "villans", you have applied multiple layers of second party fixes
in the form of firewalls, virus checkers, spyware checkers, ... It is now like you
are riding on a tire that is made from nothing but patches. The air will get around
those patches somewhere. You would be far safer riding on a tire that was designed
from the beginning to hold air.

You keep fighting off my attempts to teach you a little bit about how secure
systems work, and why windoze isn't secure, or even safe. Put your mind to it,
and shuck off your youthful know-it-all nature, and you will gain a better
understanding. The concepts we are argueing over were developed on mainframe
computers more than 40 years ago. The windoze folks are just now discovering them.

-Chuck Harris (who programmed his first computer in 1970)

I Win! 1966!

;-)
Rich

Rich Grise · Dec 27, 2004

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:23:08 +0000, Robert wrote:

(2) Any cute way, or utility I can buy, so that a right click on a
file name in Explorer will give a *complete* path that I can
copy/paste into a text file?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

I settled on ClipPath...

http://www.download.com/ClipPath/3000-2094_4-10050927.html?tag=free

I also tried CopyThisPath, but found conflicts with other programs I
use...

http://www.freetrialsoft.com/CopyThisPath-download-12971.html

...Jim Thompson

You're braver than I am (or less paranoid). I worry about what might be in
programs downloaded from the Internet. Or the conflicts they might cause
with the rest of what runs on the PC.

I still don't understand what Jim has against copy/pasting the path
from the address bar - no new software at all!

Although, he might have me shitlisted, in which case let him eat cake.
;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Chuck Harris · Dec 27, 2004

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

mainframe

computers more than 40 years ago. The windoze folks are just now

discovering them.

I'll agree to some extent with that. But I remember when PC/MS-DOS 2.1
got directories, and our mainframe still didn't have a way for a user to
do it in timeshare. Batch progs had it, tho - for obvious reasons.

Directory tree structure is just a nice feature that came from multics and
unix. It has only a little to do with security. In unix, you can do a
"chroot" command, and make a user, or program, or the whole operating system
behave as if the directory tree was rooted at any branch in the disk's
directory structure. This is done frequently when you have part of your
filesystem that is publically accessable, FTP for example.

Permissions are a different thing entirely, and began with early
multitasking systems on mainframe computers. There were some serious
kinks in the way things were done back in the '60s, but the concepts were
well inplace. The developers of unix came up with a particularily nice way
of doing it, and received the very first US patent on a software concept,
the suid bit.

-Chuck Harris

Chuck Harris · Dec 27, 2004

Rich Grise wrote:

-Chuck Harris (who programmed his first computer in 1970)

I Win! 1966!

;-)
Rich

What were you programming back then? I started on a PDP8
running TSS8.

-Chuck

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su · Dec 28, 2004

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1tmdnfyjedM2Bk3cRVn-sg@rcn.net...

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

mainframe

computers more than 40 years ago. The windoze folks are just now

discovering them.

I'll agree to some extent with that. But I remember when PC/MS-DOS
2.1
got directories, and our mainframe still didn't have a way for a
user to
do it in timeshare. Batch progs had it, tho - for obvious reasons.

Directory tree structure is just a nice feature that came from multics
and
unix. It has only a little to do with security. In unix, you can do
a
"chroot" command, and make a user, or program, or the whole operating
system
behave as if the directory tree was rooted at any branch in the disk's
directory structure. This is done frequently when you have part of
your
filesystem that is publically accessable, FTP for example.

Permissions are a different thing entirely, and began with early
multitasking systems on mainframe computers. There were some serious
kinks in the way things were done back in the '60s, but the concepts
were
well inplace. The developers of unix came up with a particularily
nice way
of doing it, and received the very first US patent on a software
concept,
the suid bit.

-Chuck Harris

Honeywell (our mainframe and minis) owned Multics - they got it from GE.
On our Level 6, I found out about this file that the users had access
to, but didn't know what it did. I fiddled with it and managed to get
the OS to let me do some things that the other users couldn't do,
heh-heh. Finally, the PCs took over and the old minis got shipped out.
The writing was on the wall. But it still took years for the PCs to get
the multitasking that the minis had had for years.

Jim Thompson · Dec 28, 2004

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:42:17 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:23:08 +0000, Robert wrote:

(2) Any cute way, or utility I can buy, so that a right click on a
file name in Explorer will give a *complete* path that I can
copy/paste into a text file?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

I settled on ClipPath...

http://www.download.com/ClipPath/3000-2094_4-10050927.html?tag=free

I also tried CopyThisPath, but found conflicts with other programs I
use...

http://www.freetrialsoft.com/CopyThisPath-download-12971.html

...Jim Thompson

You're braver than I am (or less paranoid). I worry about what might be in
programs downloaded from the Internet. Or the conflicts they might cause
with the rest of what runs on the PC.

I still don't understand what Jim has against copy/pasting the path
from the address bar - no new software at all!

Where is this in Explorer?

Although, he might have me shitlisted, in which case let him eat cake.
;-)

Cheers!
Rich

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Hal Murray · Dec 28, 2004

Summer of '60 or '61, at MIT, IBM 709??, used punched cards, learned
FAP and Fortran.

I think the 7090 turned into a 7094 sometime in the early 60s.
CTSS was running by 65 - on a heavily modified 7094 initially designed
for American Airlines Saber reservations system. Main feature
was 2 banks of memory and a few new instructions to switch
and relocate/bounds registers.

The 709 that was used before the 7090 was donated to the EE dept.
Tubes! IBM didn't want to maintain it but grad students don't
cost much. I never saw it, but heard credible rumors.

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

Richard Crowley · Dec 28, 2004

Winfield Hill wrote:

IIRC, I programmed in machine code on IBM 1410 in 1961,
Fortran with Hollerith cards on IBM 7094 in 1963 to 1964,
and a cute little IBM 1605 (?) in 1966...

1620?
http://www.computerhistory.org/projects/ibm_1620/IBM1620/

I was surprised that "only 2000 were made" as I learned
programming on one at Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa,
CA and ended up maintaining one at Loma Linda Univerisity
for several years (including designing and building an
interface for a 3rd party lineprinter). At one point the IBM
field office inquired whether I would be interested in sub-
contracting to maintain another one in Palm Springs because
they had no field staff left that knew how to work on them.

Mac · Dec 28, 2004

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:00:57 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:
"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:zY2dnSXvk8nA6lTcRVn-tg@rcn.net...

That's nice Tim. What you are touting as a great advantage (lack of

permissions)

is the Achilles heel of 'doze.

Unless you use it for personal computing... which just so happens to be
90% of the sales which M$ goes to...... but I digress...

Not at all Tim! The permissions structure is there to help protect the
important kernel functions from the user programs, and the user programs
from each other. It is a complete travisty that a user application can
change the system .DLL's. This "feature" is a major reason why if you
ask two Windows users what they think of windows, one will say it works
perfectly, and the other will say it crashes frequently.

The stability of your windows system all depends on what applications
you have loaded, and in what order.

Further windoze's lack of a permissions structure in its filesystem was
acceptable back in the days of real "personal computers", but now with
internet access, shared files, and multitasking, your computer isn't
"personal" anymore. To ward off these "villans", you have applied
multiple layers of second party fixes in the form of firewalls, virus
checkers, spyware checkers, ... It is now like you are riding on a tire
that is made from nothing but patches. The air will get around those
patches somewhere. You would be far safer riding on a tire that was
designed from the beginning to hold air.

You keep fighting off my attempts to teach you a little bit about how
secure systems work, and why windoze isn't secure, or even safe. Put
your mind to it, and shuck off your youthful know-it-all nature, and you
will gain a better understanding. The concepts we are argueing over
were developed on mainframe computers more than 40 years ago. The
windoze folks are just now discovering them.

-Chuck Harris (who programmed his first computer in 1970)

Don't get me wrong. I hate windows and microsoft as much as the next guy.

But all the negative things you are saying about windows above do not
apply to Windows NT, 2k, and XP, which have a much more robust security
model and can be used safely be people who are sophisticated enough to use
unix/linux safely.

For example, on my windows (win2k) machine at home, my wife and I normally
login as unprivileged users, not as administrators or as power users.
Periodically, I log on as administrator and do windows update. I am very
careful what I do when I am administrator. I certainly don't randomly
browse the web or check email or anything like that.

This practice defeats the vast majority of spyware out there, since most
spyware requires administrator level access to install itself. We also
don't use Internet Explorer, and only use webmail to read email at home.

I use the same basic strategy on my linux box. One thing I will say for
linux (also applies to unix) is that it is much easier under linux to go
back and forth between root and a regular user. And this is a legitimate
gripe with microsoft's OS's. They make it harder than necessary to do
things the right way.

Just my OT $0.02.

--Mac

Rich Grise · Dec 28, 2004

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:25:44 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:42:17 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:23:08 +0000, Robert wrote:

(2) Any cute way, or utility I can buy, so that a right click on a
file name in Explorer will give a *complete* path that I can
copy/paste into a text file?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

I settled on ClipPath...

http://www.download.com/ClipPath/3000-2094_4-10050927.html?tag=free

I also tried CopyThisPath, but found conflicts with other programs I
use...

http://www.freetrialsoft.com/CopyThisPath-download-12971.html

...Jim Thompson

You're braver than I am (or less paranoid). I worry about what might be in
programs downloaded from the Internet. Or the conflicts they might cause
with the rest of what runs on the PC.

I still don't understand what Jim has against copy/pasting the path
from the address bar - no new software at all!

Where is this in Explorer?

Although, he might have me shitlisted, in which case let him eat cake.
;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Naaaah! Only your psych-egos ;-) Although "eat cake" smacks of
French, and you know what that will get you ;-)

Well, "Screw him" is so crude and unseemly. I was, in fact, not sure if
I'd been killfiled; I'll go boot Win2K now and give you step-by-step
instructions, that take longer to describe than to do. ;-)

Let me know if you're not using W2K - I'll have to check the others
(XP, 98) have the "Show full path in title bar" option.

If you want to poke around in the interim, from memory it's somewhere in
the settings of Windows Explorer - I don't remember if it's under
"Tools/Options" or "Edit/Preferences" or one of the network config
thingies - I have XP on the laptop, and 2000 on this one (I need to
reboot), and I'll tell you which it is.

Back in minutes!
Rich

Locutus Borg · Dec 28, 2004

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message > On Mon, 27 Dec
2004 21:42:17 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>

wrote:
....
I still don't understand what Jim has against copy/pasting the path
from the address bar - no new software at all!

Where is this in Explorer?

In Win2K, Start/Programs/Accessories/Windows Explorer .

In WinXP, Start/All Programs/Accessories/Windows Explorer .

Win 98 might have these features as well, but I haven't ren 98 in some time.

OK, you've got WE open:

Tools/Folder Options

Then click the "View" tab, then look down the list of view options
until you see one named, "Display full path in the title bar".

Check it.

Now, this will only be the directory path - it doesn't include the file
name, but you can

a) paste the path, and type the filename part by hand, or
B) Switch back to WE task, _single-click_ the filename to highlight it,
right-click, select "Rename" from the popup context menu, and then DON'T
TYPE ANYTHING - your filename will be highlighted, and in this mode, any
typing replaces the whole name with blank - ONLY press Control-C. (arrow
keys will unhilite it, but you're still in edit mode, but you don't want to
do this.) This copies the file name to the clipboard. Press ESC. This gets
you out of "Rename" mode. Switch over to the task that you've just pasted
the path into, and you can paste the filename you've just copied.

Which OS are you actually running?

If it's 2K, you can drag the WE icon from the 3-deep menu right to your
taskbar. Being an old "I wanna see what's on my computer" type, that's one
of the first things I do when I reinstall.

Have Fun!
Rich

Rich Grise · Dec 28, 2004

OOpps!

Booted the other OS, and forgot to change my posting alias. It's just
me, being absent-minded again.

You're not assimilated, that I know of.

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 07:01:38 +0000, Locutus Borg wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message > On Mon, 27 Dec
2004 21:42:17 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:
...
I still don't understand what Jim has against copy/pasting the path
from the address bar - no new software at all!

Where is this in Explorer?

In Win2K, Start/Programs/Accessories/Windows Explorer .

In WinXP, Start/All Programs/Accessories/Windows Explorer .

Win 98 might have these features as well, but I haven't ren 98 in some time.

OK, you've got WE open:

Tools/Folder Options

Then click the "View" tab, then look down the list of view options
until you see one named, "Display full path in the title bar".

Check it.

Now, this will only be the directory path - it doesn't include the file
name, but you can

a) paste the path, and type the filename part by hand, or
B) Switch back to WE task, _single-click_ the filename to highlight it,
right-click, select "Rename" from the popup context menu, and then DON'T
TYPE ANYTHING - your filename will be highlighted, and in this mode, any
typing replaces the whole name with blank - ONLY press Control-C. (arrow
keys will unhilite it, but you're still in edit mode, but you don't want to
do this.) This copies the file name to the clipboard. Press ESC. This gets
you out of "Rename" mode. Switch over to the task that you've just pasted
the path into, and you can paste the filename you've just copied.

Which OS are you actually running?

If it's 2K, you can drag the WE icon from the 3-deep menu right to your
taskbar. Being an old "I wanna see what's on my computer" type, that's one
of the first things I do when I reinstall.

Have Fun!
Rich

Rich Grise · Dec 28, 2004

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:15:32 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote:

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1tmdnfyjedM2Bk3cRVn-sg@rcn.net...
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

mainframe

computers more than 40 years ago. The windoze folks are just now

discovering them.

I'll agree to some extent with that. But I remember when PC/MS-DOS
2.1
got directories, and our mainframe still didn't have a way for a
user to
do it in timeshare. Batch progs had it, tho - for obvious reasons.

Directory tree structure is just a nice feature that came from multics
and
unix. It has only a little to do with security. In unix, you can do
a
"chroot" command, and make a user, or program, or the whole operating
system
behave as if the directory tree was rooted at any branch in the disk's
directory structure. This is done frequently when you have part of
your
filesystem that is publically accessable, FTP for example.

Permissions are a different thing entirely, and began with early
multitasking systems on mainframe computers. There were some serious
kinks in the way things were done back in the '60s, but the concepts
were
well inplace. The developers of unix came up with a particularily
nice way
of doing it, and received the very first US patent on a software
concept,
the suid bit.

-Chuck Harris

Honeywell (our mainframe and minis) owned Multics - they got it from GE.
On our Level 6, I found out about this file that the users had access
to, but didn't know what it did. I fiddled with it and managed to get
the OS to let me do some things that the other users couldn't do,
heh-heh. Finally, the PCs took over and the old minis got shipped out.
The writing was on the wall. But it still took years for the PCs to get
the multitasking that the minis had had for years.

I've just had a vision of a Linux distro with "real" MS Win GUI stuff.

The only thing wrong with Linux is it's not ready for Aunt Tillie yet.
But the whole Windoze eye-candy GUI was _designed_ to be Aunt Tillie-
friendly - they've got a thousand programmers, why not just:
A ) Incorporate those secret drivers in an Xorg conf so they can get
those nice, crisp, clean graphics
B ) do all the other sweet Doze stuff at the level of the Desktop Manager.
And of course, use the current Kernel, and all that.

So you'd have the bennies of Win eye candy/Aunt Tillie-friendliness on
a foundation of Linux.

There are no losers in that game - Bill can still sell it - that's in the
GPL.

And all the spam would go away, when everybody started dropping it at
their iptables.

Cheers!
Rich

OT: Copy PATH from Windows Explorer ??

Jim Thompson

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

mark thomas

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Robert

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Hal Murray

Guest

Richard Crowley

Guest

Mac

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Locutus Borg

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor