Even better than virtual machines, assuming it works as described.(I haven't 
tried it, but I'm about to! :-)

http://lifehacker.com/5195999/portable-ubuntu-runs-ubuntu-inside-windows

-- 
   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:
> Even better than virtual machines, assuming it works as described.(I haven't
> tried it, but I'm about to! :-)
>
> http://lifehacker.com/5195999/portable-ubuntu-runs-ubuntu-inside-windows

2 days late. :)

This reminds me of people with humongous amounts of junk in their iPods,
constantly zapping, never stopping for a moment to appreciate any of it.  What
is the point?  Just to make the multicore hardware of today sweat we'll run
Linux from Windows from a VNC client from a java VM?

OTOH, it's tempting to get this one to work, might it be not a april fool's
prank... :)

Post a reply to this message

So what happens when you run WINE inside of this?  Then open this inside of 
that...just how far can you recurse these things?

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Even better than virtual machines, assuming it works as described.(I haven't 
> tried it, but I'm about to! :-)

> http://lifehacker.com/5195999/portable-ubuntu-runs-ubuntu-inside-windows

  The only unanswered question is why anyone would *want* to run linux
from windows.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The only unanswered question is why anyone would *want* to run linux
> from windows.

Sure. All the *good* stuff from Linux has already been ported to native 
Windows. </troll>  ;-)

-- 
   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

nemesis wrote:
>  Just to make the multicore hardware of today sweat we'll
> run Linux from Windows from a VNC client from a java VM?

I once saw a full PC/x86 emulator as a Java applet. Took some minutes to
boot a basic Linux kernel and ate a lot of memory, but sure worked!

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>>  Just to make the multicore hardware of today sweat we'll
>> run Linux from Windows from a VNC client from a java VM?
> 
> I once saw a full PC/x86 emulator as a Java applet. Took some minutes to
> boot a basic Linux kernel and ate a lot of memory, but sure worked!

http://www-jpc.physics.ox.ac.uk/DemoLinux.html

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The only unanswered question is why anyone would *want* to run linux
> from windows.

Typically because you want to quickly do something that's trivial under 
Linux, and you don't fancy spenting 4 weeks searching for an equivilent 
Windows tool to do the same thing.

(E.g., you try finding a tool that can compute the MD5 sums of all the 
files in a given folder and write them into a text file. Under Linux, 
this is trivial. Under Windows... well, there's a CLI tool that will 
compute the MD5 sum for *one* file, but you try scripting it to process 
several...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> (E.g., you try finding a tool that can compute the MD5 sums of all the 
> files in a given folder and write them into a text file. Under Linux, this 
> is trivial. Under Windows... well, there's a CLI tool that will compute 
> the MD5 sum for *one* file, but you try scripting it to process 
> several...)

sfk can do that trivially.  used it on a whole tree.  unfortunately it 
doesn't like unicode characters in filenames, so it missed a few dozen.  :(

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   The only unanswered question is why anyone would *want* to run linux
> > from windows.

> Typically because you want to quickly do something that's trivial under 
> Linux, and you don't fancy spenting 4 weeks searching for an equivilent 
> Windows tool to do the same thing.

  Don't you mean equivalent?

  Anyways, my comment had a hint of "why would anyone want to run Windows
in the first place?"

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-4-2009 18:03, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   The only unanswered question is why anyone would *want* to run linux
>>> from windows.
> 
>> Typically because you want to quickly do something that's trivial under 
>> Linux, and you don't fancy spending 4 weeks searching for an equivilent 
>> Windows tool to do the same thing.
> 
>   Don't you mean equivalent?
> 

Oh, come on Warp, you should have known by now that this is the 
preferred way of spelling in his spell chicker.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Anyways, my comment had a hint of "why would anyone want to run Windows
> in the first place?"

Maybe to do with the vast amount of software that only runs with Windows?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> OTOH, it's tempting to get this one to work, might it be not a april fool's
> prank... :)

I get a meaningless error message for colinux-daemon --install-driver
so it isn't working for me. I'll have to try it on a non-emulated 32-bit CPU 
before giving up entirely.

-- 
   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

> (E.g., you try finding a tool that can compute the MD5 sums of all the 
> files in a given folder and write them into a text file.

Umm I typed into google "md5 checksum windows", the 2nd result looked 
promising so I clicked it, and it seems to offer a free command-line tool 
that does exactly what you want.  It took like 10 seconds, Linux takes 
longer than that to boot.

> Under Windows... well, there's a CLI tool that will compute the MD5 sum 
> for *one* file, but you try scripting it to process several...)

If you have ever done any windows scripting it should be a piece of cake, 
this is pretty standard stuff for dealing with files in scripts:

Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
Set Folder = FSO.GetFolder("folder name")
Set Files = Folder.Files
For Each File in Files
  do something with File.Name here
Next

Post a reply to this message

>> (E.g., you try finding a tool that can compute the MD5 sums of all the 
>> files in a given folder and write them into a text file.
> 
> Umm I typed into google "md5 checksum windows", the 2nd result looked 
> promising so I clicked it, and it seems to offer a free command-line 
> tool that does exactly what you want.  It took like 10 seconds, Linux 
> takes longer than that to boot.

Except that the Linux MD5 tool can automatically compute the MD5 sum of 
multiple files. I have only found one tool for Windows that can do this, 
and it was buggy as hell. (Kept printing garbage characters to stdout, 
got confused by certain pathnames, etc.)

>> Under Windows... well, there's a CLI tool that will compute the MD5 
>> sum for *one* file, but you try scripting it to process several...)
> 
> If you have ever done any windows scripting it should be a piece of 
> cake, this is pretty standard stuff for dealing with files in scripts:
> 
> Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
> Set Folder = FSO.GetFolder("folder name")
> Set Files = Folder.Files
> For Each File in Files
>  do something with File.Name here
> Next

What the hell language is *that*?!

Post a reply to this message

> Except that the Linux MD5 tool can automatically compute the MD5 sum of 
> multiple files. I have only found one tool for Windows that can do this, 
> and it was buggy as hell. (Kept printing garbage characters to stdout, got 
> confused by certain pathnames, etc.)

The one I found seemed to offer that too.

http://www.fastsum.com/support/user%20manual.php

>> Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
>> Set Folder = FSO.GetFolder("folder name")
>> Set Files = Folder.Files
>> For Each File in Files
>>  do something with File.Name here
>> Next
>
> What the hell language is *that*?!

VBscript, it's what most people use to write scripts on windows, isn't it?

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/topics/beginner/firststeps.mspx

Post a reply to this message

>> Except that the Linux MD5 tool can automatically compute the MD5 sum 
>> of multiple files. I have only found one tool for Windows that can do 
>> this, and it was buggy as hell. (Kept printing garbage characters to 
>> stdout, got confused by certain pathnames, etc.)
> 
> The one I found seemed to offer that too.

What, wildcards or bugginess? :-}

>> What the hell language is *that*?!
> 
> VBscript, it's what most people use to write scripts on windows, isn't it?

Actually I just write DOS scripts. If I need anything more complex, I 
write Haskell.

As a matter of fact, I wrote an MD5 program in Haskell. But it turns out 
not to be very fast...

Post a reply to this message

> Actually I just write DOS scripts. If I need anything more complex, I 
> write Haskell.

There's always this: :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell

> As a matter of fact, I wrote an MD5 program in Haskell. But it turns out 
> not to be very fast...

Hehe, not surprising.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> If you have ever done any windows scripting it should be a piece of cake, 

  That seems to be a problem with Windows: It simply doesn't invite you
to do things by scripting.

  I have been a regular Windows user for over 10 years, yet I don't have
the slightest idea about vbscripts nor even how you could even run them.
Can you run them directly? Do you need some kind of interpreter for it?
Does Windows support them by default, or do you need to install something?
I really don't have the slightest idea. I don't even know where to start.

  I have also been a regular Unix user for over 10 years, and I'm somewhat
fluent in shell scripting. I'm in fact so used to it, that I find a terminal
emulator much more comfortable for browsing and handling files than a
graphical file browser (even though all linux distros have both).

  I can't say which system I have used more overall, but I think it's
rather telling that in one system I'm pretty fluent with its scripting,
while in the other I don't have the faintest idea where to even start
looking. There is just some fundamental difference in these two systems
which causes different natural way of thinking.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Actually I just write DOS scripts. If I need anything more complex, I 
>> write Haskell.
> 
> There's always this: :-)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell

Yeah. Looks like my perfectly working login scripts are going to be 
replaced with this at some point. For one reason or another, the guys 
from HQ seem to like to do things in the most complex and difficult way 
possible. I guess it makes them feel superior or something...

>> As a matter of fact, I wrote an MD5 program in Haskell. But it turns 
>> out not to be very fast...
> 
> Hehe, not surprising.

Come back after *you* have implemented MD5 _correctly_. It's nontrivial 
to get it to work properly. :-P (There are all kinds of gotchas about 
using little-endian integers, doing padding correctly, etc.)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   That seems to be a problem with Windows: It simply doesn't invite you
> to do things by scripting.

I guess that's because it's "designed for novicies".

On the other hand, just about every tool in MS Office comes with VBA. 
It's just that Windows itself doesn't really invite you to script it.

>   I have been a regular Windows user for over 10 years, yet I don't have
> the slightest idea about vbscripts nor even how you could even run them.
> Can you run them directly? Do you need some kind of interpreter for it?
> Does Windows support them by default, or do you need to install something?
> I really don't have the slightest idea. I don't even know where to start.

The DOS scripts I usually write work regardless. (*.bat, or *.cmd for NT 
or later.) As I understand it, to run exotic languages like VBScript or 
JavaScript, you need the Windows Script Host (WSH). This is an optional 
extra for NT 4.0, but comes with XP (and, presumably, later). I did have 
a look at using JavaScript in this capacity, but I couldn't find any 
documentation anywhere.

>   I have also been a regular Unix user for over 10 years, and I'm somewhat
> fluent in shell scripting. I'm in fact so used to it, that I find a terminal
> emulator much more comfortable for browsing and handling files than a
> graphical file browser (even though all linux distros have both).

I find a GUI to be a superior way of *viewing* files (in general), but 
the CLI can be a superior way of *working on* files. From a command 
prompt, I can easily say "del *.png", but no GUI I've ever seen offers 
similar functionallity.

Sometimes I fantasise about writing my own file manager. It's right up 
there next to my various other unfinished projects. :-/

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Umm I typed into google "md5 checksum windows", 

And, fwiw, the term "win32" usually gives better hits than "windows" if 
you're looking for ports of GNU stuff to native windows.

>> Under Windows... well, there's a CLI tool that will compute the MD5 
>> sum for *one* file, but you try scripting it to process several...)
> 
> If you have ever done any windows scripting it should be a piece of 
> cake, this is pretty standard stuff for dealing with files in scripts:
> 
> Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
> Set Folder = FSO.GetFolder("folder name")
> Set Files = Folder.Files
> For Each File in Files
>  do something with File.Name here
> Next

Or just
for %I in (*.txt) do md5 %I >>checksums.txt
or whatever parameters you want. It's not like Windows doesn't have a shell. :-)

-- 
   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

>> If you have ever done any windows scripting it should be a piece of 
>> cake, this is pretty standard stuff for dealing with files in scripts:
>>
>> Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
>> Set Folder = FSO.GetFolder("folder name")
>> Set Files = Folder.Files
>> For Each File in Files
>>  do something with File.Name here
>> Next
> 
> Or just
> for %I in (*.txt) do md5 %I >>checksums.txt
> or whatever parameters you want. It's not like Windows doesn't have a 
> shell. :-)

Does that work recursively?

Slightly more fun is trying to make it produce the exact same output as 
the Unix MD5 tool so it's portable between OSes... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I can easily say "del *.png", but no GUI I've ever seen offers 
> similar functionallity.

Sort by type, select the range of png files, and delete them.
Alternately, type "*.png" into the search bar, ctrl-A, delete.

Not quite as intuitive as del *.png, I'll grant, but potentially quicker 
than opening a command window and navigating to the directory manually. :-)

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
>   That seems to be a problem with Windows: It simply doesn't invite you
> to do things by scripting.

Not at the command level, true. Within applications, there's all kinds of 
macro capabilities, at least in the sophisticated apps.

>   I have been a regular Windows user for over 10 years, yet I don't have
> the slightest idea about vbscripts nor even how you could even run them.
> Can you run them directly?

Open a command prompt and type "echo %pathext%"
.vbs is visual basic script.
.wsh is windows scripting host.
.js  is probably javascript.

(Those are the extensions that cmd.exe will treat as executable)



> Do you need some kind of interpreter for it?
> Does Windows support them by default, or do you need to install something?

Yes, built in.

> I really don't have the slightest idea. I don't even know where to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Scripting_Host   ;-)

>   I have also been a regular Unix user for over 10 years, and I'm somewhat
> fluent in shell scripting. I'm in fact so used to it, that I find a terminal
> emulator much more comfortable for browsing and handling files than a
> graphical file browser (even though all linux distros have both).

Me too, but that's more because the Linux file browsers I've found don't 
really offer enough functionality to make them worthwhile. On Linux I use 
the command prompt for most things, and on Windows I use the graphical shell 
for most things. When I want to do something more sophisticated, I generally 
use Tcl in both cases.

>   I can't say which system I have used more overall, but I think it's
> rather telling that in one system I'm pretty fluent with its scripting,
> while in the other I don't have the faintest idea where to even start
> looking. There is just some fundamental difference in these two systems
> which causes different natural way of thinking.

For one, everything in Windows can assume you have a graphical interface, so 
all the configuration files and manipulations and such all have graphical 
editors for them. Even the registry, which would be ideal for command-line 
stuff, has a graphical editor.  So there tends to be less need to use the 
command line in Windows.

I wouldn't say one is better than the other *because* of the shells. There 
are things that bug me about Linux GUIs, and things that bug me about 
Windows CLI shells. Generally, I think in Windows one tends not to use the 
shell except when specifically scripting or building macros or whatever. In 
Linux, it's the normal way to interact with things (and for the system to be 
configured a la .bashrc), so one tends to learn how to use the Linux shells 
bit by bit.

-- 
   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:
> Does that work recursively?

for /R %I in ....
for /R drive:path %I in ...

You have Windows there, don't you? The "for" command has like five pages of 
options.  for /?

> Slightly more fun is trying to make it produce the exact same output as 
> the Unix MD5 tool so it's portable between OSes... ;-)

Probably easier to take the result from UNIX and format it to what Windows 
creates. That sort of stuff is how UNIX works.

The basic difference between UNIX scripting and Windows scripting is that 
UNIX scripting is defined on file formats while the Windows scripting is 
defined over APIs.  Personally, I think APIs are the way to go, but file 
formats allow for easier quick-and-dirty stuff compared to future proofing 
and portability.

-- 
   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 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   That seems to be a problem with Windows: It simply doesn't invite you
> > to do things by scripting.
>
> I guess that's because it's "designed for novicies".

No, perhaps that's because scripting like as if you were writing a Java app --
as in the previous example, complete with "object factories" and useless
declarations -- just sucks?

> The DOS scripts I usually write work regardless. (*.bat, or *.cmd for NT
> or later.) As I understand it, to run exotic languages like VBScript or
> JavaScript, you need the Windows Script Host (WSH). This is an optional
> extra for NT 4.0, but comes with XP (and, presumably, later). I did have
> a look at using JavaScript in this capacity, but I couldn't find any
> documentation anywhere.

What I find most amusing about Microsoft's hype machine about several languages
implementations available for use with their frameworks is that the
programs/scripts so produced all look exactly alike, except for faint syntatic
differences.  That's because language truly doesn't matter when all you do is
call predefined stuff.  Languages only matter when most of the code is spent
implementing new stuff rather than calling from libs.

> Sometimes I fantasise about writing my own file manager. It's right up
> there next to my various other unfinished projects. :-/

You could take a look at the Zipper Filesystem, a fully transactional and purely
functional filesystem implemented in Haskell with GHC:

http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/Continuations.html#zipper-fs

Oleg is a kind of modern day compsci genious, something rare among the IT
workers and dictators of today.  His head seems to operate on a level far above
ours, always amazing us with ingenious takes on innovative ways to do things.
Shame he never went into designing a programming language of his own, instead
relying on C++, Scheme and Haskell a vehicles for his imagination.

He also gave recently an interesting lecture at Haskell Cafe against Lazy IO:

http://groups.google.com/group/fa.haskell/browse_thread/thread/50cc28a0ae61c38e/d5917350262c3ebd

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
> > Set Folder = FSO.GetFolder("folder name")
> > Set Files = Folder.Files
> > For Each File in Files
> >  do something with File.Name here
> > Next
>
> Or just
> for %I in (*.txt) do md5 %I >>checksums.txt
> or whatever parameters you want. It's not like Windows doesn't have a shell. :-)

ah!  That's definitely better.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:48:41 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Except that the Linux MD5 tool can automatically compute the MD5 sum of
> multiple files. I have only found one tool for Windows that can do this,
> and it was buggy as hell. (Kept printing garbage characters to stdout,
> got confused by certain pathnames, etc.)

I've used md5sum.exe from etree.org in the past and it's worked very well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Does that work recursively?

Pass /R and it will.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Sort by type, select the range of png files, and delete them.
> Alternately, type "*.png" into the search bar, ctrl-A, delete.

And if PNG:s are defined just as "Image" and there's another image types
defined the same (eg. .JPG), you'll practically remove them also.

> Not quite as intuitive as del *.png, I'll grant, but potentially quicker
> than opening a command window and navigating to the directory manually. :-)

That's one reason to tweak "Open command prompt here" to the right-click
menu ;-).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

>> If you have ever done any windows scripting it should be a piece of cake,
>
>  That seems to be a problem with Windows: It simply doesn't invite you
> to do things by scripting.

Why not, it's really easy, on a fresh OS install you can open notepad, 
script away in a DOS-like language, VBscript or JavaScript, save the file 
and run it.  If you need help, google will give you millions of examples and 
tutorial on how to do stuff, the MS website even has a whole area for it.

>  I have been a regular Windows user for over 10 years, yet I don't have
> the slightest idea about vbscripts nor even how you could even run them.
> Can you run them directly? Do you need some kind of interpreter for it?
> Does Windows support them by default, or do you need to install something?
> I really don't have the slightest idea. I don't even know where to start.
>
>  I have also been a regular Unix user for over 10 years, and I'm somewhat
> fluent in shell scripting. I'm in fact so used to it, that I find a 
> terminal
> emulator much more comfortable for browsing and handling files than a
> graphical file browser (even though all linux distros have both).
>
>  I can't say which system I have used more overall, but I think it's
> rather telling that in one system I'm pretty fluent with its scripting,
> while in the other I don't have the faintest idea where to even start
> looking. There is just some fundamental difference in these two systems
> which causes different natural way of thinking.

The key question is, why didn't you learn to script for windows? Is it 
because you didn't need to, didn't want to, or weren't able to?  What are 
the scripts doing that you have written for Unix? Why aren't they needed on 
Windows?

Post a reply to this message

>> Not quite as intuitive as del *.png, I'll grant, but potentially quicker
>> than opening a command window and navigating to the directory manually. :-)
> 
> That's one reason to tweak "Open command prompt here" to the right-click
> menu ;-).

Opening a command prompt and navigating it to the same place as the 
Explorer window you already have open *is* frustratingly tedious. Some 
day I'll have to find a way around that...

Post a reply to this message

>> Does that work recursively?
> 
> Pass /R and it will.

Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?

Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Opening a command prompt and navigating it to the same place as the 
> Explorer window you already have open *is* frustratingly tedious. Some 
> day I'll have to find a way around that...

It's called "open command prompt here". :-) Google it.

Built into vista - hold the shift key when you right-click the folder icon.

-- 
   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:
>>> Does that work recursively?
>>
>> Pass /R and it will.
> 
> Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?
> 
> Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...

Yes.

for /?

Like we said...  There's literally 5 screens of options.

-- 
   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

>> Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?
>>
>> Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> for /?

I was thinking more along the lines of

   FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f

actually. :-P

> Like we said...  There's literally 5 screens of options.

...and no way of reading it easily. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?
>>>
>>> Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> for /?
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of
> 
>   FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f

Yes. But the right answer is "both, depending on what options you give."

>> Like we said...  There's literally 5 screens of options.
> ...and no way of reading it easily. :-P

Uh, why not?  I assume you're literate, you have a Windows machine, and a 
keyboard and screen, or you wouldn't be asking about it.

-- 
   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

>> I was thinking more along the lines of
>>
>>   FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f
> 
> Yes. But the right answer is "both, depending on what options you give."

Probably, yes. (I already figured out - for another problem - that %~nf 
strips the file extension.) Personally, I'm not fond of all these funky 
abbriviations. I'd refer something like %{drop suffix %f} or something.

>>> Like we said...  There's literally 5 screens of options.
>> ...and no way of reading it easily. :-P
> 
> Uh, why not?  I assume you're literate, you have a Windows machine, and 
> a keyboard and screen, or you wouldn't be asking about it.

Have you tried using the Windows pager? It's horrid. :-S

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I was thinking more along the lines of
> >>
> >>   FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f
> >
> > Yes. But the right answer is "both, depending on what options you give."
>
> Probably, yes. (I already figured out - for another problem - that %~nf
> strips the file extension.) Personally, I'm not fond of all these funky
> abbriviations. I'd refer something like %{drop suffix %f} or something.

ah, the guy who enjoys a programming language comprised of obfuscated symbols in
confusing point-free style wish what is supposed to be concise scripting
languages to be comprised of verbose commands.  Makes plenty of sense. ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> ah, the guy who enjoys a programming language comprised of obfuscated symbols in
> confusing point-free style

I disagree.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I was thinking more along the lines of
>>>
>>>   FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f
>> 
>> Yes. But the right answer is "both, depending on what options you give."
> 
> Probably, yes. (I already figured out - for another problem - that %~nf
> strips the file extension.) Personally, I'm not fond of all these funky
> abbriviations. I'd refer something like %{drop suffix %f} or something.

You've clearly never used Perl?

Post a reply to this message

>> Probably, yes. (I already figured out - for another problem - that %~nf
>> strips the file extension.) Personally, I'm not fond of all these funky
>> abbriviations. I'd refer something like %{drop suffix %f} or something.
> 
> You've clearly never used Perl?

It's something I try to avoid, yes.

(I sat down with a book one day and wrote a Perl CGI script. A week 
later, I couldn't figure out how in the name of God it actually works...)

Post a reply to this message