Invisible wrote:
>>> This is what I was looking for. Thanks.
>>
>> Note that this is also the command equivalent for "nice".
> 
> What does "nice" do?

	Allows you to run processes at a lower (or higher) priority.


-- 
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

>>> Note that this is also the command equivalent for "nice".
>> What does "nice" do?
> 
> 	Allows you to run processes at a lower (or higher) priority.

Ah, I see. (Why the heck is it called "nice" then?)

I hadn't noticed the priority options to the "start" command...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Ah, I see. (Why the heck is it called "nice" then?)

  Because when you write "nice program" in unix, it will start the program
at a lower priority, so that it will act nicer (ie. consume less resources).

  This comes from the principle that unix is a multiuser system, and one
user hogging all the CPU is not nice, so it was always recommended to
start long-running CPU-heavy programs with "nice".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I don't think file ownership will be a problem. The permissions on the 
> folder are set correctly, so I think it'll work.

Yeah.  NTFS has a better permissions model than UNIX does, so it's easier to 
make sure files in a directory end up properly permissioned.

> (I wonder how you get it to do the thing where it *asks* for permission 
> to do stuff?)

There's a flag in the header of the executable. Alternately, ...

> Interestingly, the other day I tried to unzip a file into Program Files 
> and 7zip couldn't do it. However, Windows Explorer could. (It asked for 
> permission.) Interesting, eh? :-.

... you try, you fail with a "permission denied" message, and you put up a 
prompt saying "would you like to try again as administrator?"

>> Or right-click on the command prompt icon and pick "run as 
>> administrator".
> 
> This works on XP, but under Vista I couldn't see an option for that...

Open the start menu (with a left click), navigate until you see the command 
prompt icon on the menu, and right click it. The second option should be 
"run as administrator". It's the one with the security shield icon next to it.

Alternately, start a command prompt and see if it already says 
"administrator" in the title bar, in which case you've already configured 
your machine to bypass all the security stuff. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>>> Note that this is also the command equivalent for "nice".
>>> What does "nice" do?
>> 
>> Allows you to run processes at a lower (or higher) priority.
> 
> Ah, I see. (Why the heck is it called "nice" then?)

A nice process shares more resources with the rest.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Ah, I see. (Why the heck is it called "nice" then?)

Note that "nice" is being used as a verb, as in "make this process nice."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> NTFS has a better permissions model than UNIX does

  I like how you are comparing a file system to an operating system, like
they were the same type of thing, comparable to each other.

  (One thing I really fail to understand about NTFS: Since NTFS has so
many fancy features, why doesn't WinXP support them? And by support I mean
it doesn't offer any kind of user interface to handle them, not even for
power users, who could benefit from it.
  Is Vista any better in this regard? Knowing Microsoft, I wouldn't be
surprised if it wasn't.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Ah, I see. (Why the heck is it called "nice" then?)

> Note that "nice" is being used as a verb, as in "make this process nice."

  Compare to "renice", which changes the priority of an already running
process.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> NTFS has a better permissions model than UNIX does
> 
>   I like how you are comparing a file system to an operating system, like
> they were the same type of thing, comparable to each other.

If UNIX permissions systems suck, you're not going to be able to write a 
decent file system permissions mechanism, unless you go outside the realm of 
UNIX.  (E.g., SQL has a sophisticated permissions system implemented under 
UNIX, but you can't access it via the normal UNIX mechanisms. The same holds 
for GFS.)

Just like if your file system sucks, it doesn't matter how good your 
permission system is in the OS, it's not going to work on the files. (e.g., 
FAT under NT sucks permissions-wise.)

NTFS only runs under NT/XP/Vista/etc.  NTFS under UNIX has a suckful 
permission system, indeed even worse than ext under UNIX. But I knew if I 
said XP has a better permission system, someone would gripe about FAT under 
XP being worse than UNIX, so I phrased it the way I did very carefully. The 
thing holding back good permissions for a file system on Windows is the file 
system (FAT sucks, NTFS is good). The thing holding back good permissions 
for a file system on UNIX is the kernel (all FS's suck equally, because the 
infrastructure needed just isn't in the kernel). Hence the comparison.

Unless you have an example of a UNIX file system whose permissions are 
comparable to NTFS's? If you do, let me know, because that would be awesome.

>   (One thing I really fail to understand about NTFS: Since NTFS has so
> many fancy features, why doesn't WinXP support them? And by support I mean
> it doesn't offer any kind of user interface to handle them, not even for
> power users, who could benefit from it.

Like what is lacking?  A lot of the more sophisticated features don't make 
sense to use without the backing of particular software. For example, it 
doesn't make sense to provide a detailed user interface for offlined files 
if you don't have any backup software installed that creates offlined files.

The only NTFS feature I'm aware of that doesn't come with some GUI built 
into explorer somewhere to handle it is hard and soft links.

>   Is Vista any better in this regard? Knowing Microsoft, I wouldn't be
> surprised if it wasn't.)

It depends what features you're talking about, but generally, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:58:49 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> (I wonder how you get it to do the thing where it *asks* for permission  
>> to do stuff?)
>
> There's a flag in the header of the executable.

Is there? I thought this was configured in the manifest.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message