Re: text file saved in COM format..

I don't know if this will get posted twice. If it does, it's the same

NoStop wrote:
q_q_anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


NoStop wrote:
q_q_anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


Byte wrote:
COM and EXE extensions are reserved executable formats and cannot
be used for TXT documents. It could put your PC in the trash bin.
Save the documents with a txt or doc extension.
--


or if it's an html web page, then .html/.htm


I second what you've said,.

I can't believe that so far 2 posters in this thread have gone along
with him calling this file .com !!! **maybe** it'd make sense to call
a directory .com(many offline browsers do- which is fine, it shouldn't
be confused with a file) But don't call a web page file a .com !!

It's because COM executables aren't seen much anymore. They can only be
64KB in size or smaller and are/were created in the old days by writing
assembly language. Today Windoze executables are so much larger and
written in higher level program languages than assembly. But Windoze
still recognizes the COM extention as an executable file and hence the
OP's "problem". :-)

A more sophisticated operating system won't bother doing file
associations based on file extension names, but rather will use
permission bits to designate whether a file is executable or not. But,
Windoze XP isn't that sophisticated and carries around within it alot of
old DOS baggage.

Cheers.

--
Linux is ready for the desktop! More ready than Windoze XP.
http://tinyurl.com/ldm9d

Err, which OS is sophisticated and which is primitive?


Hidden files
What about more sophisticated operating systems using attributes to
make a file 'hidden'. Whereas a primitive operating system might use
the filename itself to indicate that.

Sure is alot simpler to start a filename with a dot to hide it rather than
to have to go and change its attributes. That I'd call "sophisticated".

Of course it's not suprising that linux doesn't include 'hidden' as an
attribute.. You'd have to know 0-15 in binary, along with 4 column
headings rwx and h !!

Why should it when its so much simpler to just "dot" it?


Because

How can you then display hidden files, not hidden directories?

and excluding . and .. ?

In DOS or the command prompt, you can display files with particular
attributes, very easily. dir /a-dh (all that are not directories,
and are hidden).
Also, it works for other attributes, like 'read only'.



Globbing / *
Reasonably sophisticated operating systems also distinguish well
between files and directories. Very easy for the command that lists
them, to list either just files, or just directories.


ls -dl */


I know that one for just directories. But for teh ake of consistency,
surely ls should be able to do just files - not directories.

ls *[^/] <-- doesn't work (why?!) And the alternatives i've seen aren't
so pretty!

Something so simple should be possible elegently with ls, rather than
with a long find command, or by stringing ls together with grep.

A DOS user doesn't have to string dir together with find , in order to
list files (non-directories)!

Something so trivial should have an elegant solution! Or perhaps
elegant is the wrong word.
A low keystroke solution And with only the directory listing command.
It should be a basic function of it.


Just hidden
files. Just hidden directories.

ls -dl .*/


There the same issue as before. How about just non directories.

But further-
How about excluding . and .. ? I want just files, or just directories.
just hidden files, just hidden directories. I don't want those . and
... entries.

If could give a reason, but it's only 90% researched, I may have
overlooked something. Or I may be correct, but for slightly idffferent
reasons.. I'd rather be able to exclude . and ..
here one is.. But it's long, and with my lack of experience in linux
batch scripting, maybe I overlooked something, and don't want it to
geti n the way of the post!

Here is my reason
DOS doesn't have recursive commands, and it doesn't expand * like linux
does. In DOS you can't do echo * i.e. dir * or *.* doesn't become dir
.. .. a b c Therefore, . and .. never cause such problematic thought.
The .. is just useful for moving back directories.
Linux is different, ls *, if * expands to . and .. (and from my
preliminary investigations .* always does, at least in bash) , so it
will include ls . and ls .. So linux bullies me with that default. .
Fair enough, but give me a setting to turn that setting off, if linux
claims to be so flexible, it should let me! By the way, dir
understand you may want just the files or directories and not the . and
..., and dir /b wil exclude them, and given the way * or *.* works in
DOS, you can do dir *.* /b and it won't include . and .. Thisi s
useful, if you need those results and don't want . and .. processed.
Consider-
how many hidden files or directories do I have..
ls -l .* | wc -l
But if I want to exclude the . and .. entries. I can't from ls. So I
must subtract 2 from the result. That's not so many more keystrokes
than necessary, it's a hack, it's a little bit ugly for something so
simple, and it's functionality that should be within ls.

You see it'd be nice if linux was flexibility enough to give at least
the elegance that DOS offers... There's no reason why linux shouldn't
in this case. I'm not asking linux to be DOS, but i see that linux has
its own ways of doing things. But in this comparison of ls and dir, the
demand I make, is not asking linux to not be linux. On the contrary! If
linux could do what I suggest, it'd be good linux philosophy!








But in linux, it often makes more sense to

<snip>

Scripting
They say, but the Bash (the standard interpreter for scripts in *nix)
is so powerful!! Well, QBASIC for DOS was more powerful. Try
writing a game in Bash.

QBASIC was a interpreted "programming language". On the Linux side you have
many that are far more powerful, such as python or perl ... and there are
many more.

Well, python and perl exist as windows ports too.

So at best we're even here. I don't have such an issue here ..and
nowadays people aren't using QB with win xp.

Qbasic fitted well with DOS. Came with it. It wasn't like a 3rd party
thing. And it was so easy.

I wouldn't say that python and perl are part of linux or windows or
dos. But QBASIC is very much part of DOS.

They say Linux is just a kernel, so really we should speak of
Linux/GNU. But then you've got a whole ton of software to wade through.
I imagine that people gradually discovered python or perl, soon after
it came out, by word of mouth, by being in the business, or by having
internet access in the early 90s and reading about it.
Everybody with DOS that was into DOS had and knew QBASIC. Any 12 year
old, that didn't have the benefit of internet access or being in the
profession, or knowing anybody else that liked computers.. He could go
far into DOS with dir *.exe dir *.com, help <Enter>
he'd find qbasic.



Though i'm not sure if QB lives in NT anymore, so that criticism is
only half fair.

Multi-user
For somebody running his own computer, the whole multiuser attributes
thing is a hassle.. Too much information.

Maybe a bit of a hassle for the newbie, but that's what keeps the user space
separate from the kernel space AND keeps one user space separate from
another user space. A sophisticated operating system has these builtin safe
guards for security purposes. Malicious code run by one user can't impact
on the o/s (kernel space) nor on other user's data/files. The lack of this
in Windoze is what makes viruses and trojans so destructive on
that "operating system".


this is a very sad state of affairs nowadays

Back in the days of DOS,
-
there was no problem of browser hijacking.. I first ran into that in
2003.
I didn't have internet access at the time I was using just DOS.. We
ran into viruses, usually from a friend's floppy disk (where on earth
knows had that been?).
It seemed that there weren't new viruses coming out all the time. We
had the Anti-virus, MSAV to get rid of them, and VSAFE. These were
really good. And at that time, they were fine. The viruses didn't tend
to format or wipe partitions. They just attacked EXEs and COMs.

And it was adequate.. It's possible to have so much security as to make
a system uncomfortable to use.

DOS didn't need its whole OS redesigned to deal with such a small
threat that its technical users could deal with themselves.


Regarding nowadays though.
-
Most *technically minded* Windows XP users can browse aroudn as
Administrator. And simply by not using 'internet explorer' and not
running dangerous programs, they are safe.
I don't need many user accounts in my windows xp system.
Many people working in the security world, may still work as
Administrator. And do so safely, and have done for years , without
problems.

I can see the attributes of a file from a command prompt, without the
irrelevance of seeing what premissions other users may have.. I don't
even care how that works. Because I am the only user of my system.. If
somebody else uses my computer, it's rare, and i'll watch them like a
hawk.. Not because they want to read my files - they don't. But because
they don't know what they're doing. If they knew what they were
doing, they'd want their own computer. I don't really need to
inconvenience myself with such security concerns which really don't
apply in my nice environment. It is a LUXURY to be able to do this.
If I am running a server and a firewall, and somebody breaks in, then
congratulations to them if they're that good. And if they're that
good, then even if I was running in a limited account, i'd bet they
could escalate to Administrative. Maybe install a key logger.
It's my home machine. Should I inconvenience myself making things take
so much longer, making the OS far nastier to use, all in the hope that
somebody as smart or 20* smarter than me can't break in? You draw a
balance between comfort and security.

Windows XP is fantastic like that!! It has the Administrative account,
and limited accoutns. You can put an ignoramus on a limited account.
But you can run on an Administrative account. Any commands you run
from DOS related to dir, or file attributes (attrib), do note tell you
anything about what permissions they haveo n your files.. Nice and
simple. And secure. Though as I said.. I rarely have other people
using my computer. If they are, they are ignoramuses + I watch them
like a hawk. This happens for 5 minutes a month. Not much of an
inconvenience.





In NT, I can use DOS
commands without care as to other peoples's read/write attributes..

As can any malware you download and run. :-)

It's my own machine anyway!! I don't have other people using it.

There's more to a multiuser o/s than just the human user. There are
other "users" associated with different things that also are protected by
file permissions. Think of a user named "apache" and you'll get my drift.


i'm new to linux.. though i did once set up an apache server. I set
'other' to r. and didn't put executable access to the directory.
Anybody logging in should have the same permissions. If they can log
in. That was fine.

I don't really have the experience in linux to answer that one
properly. However, regarding windows, .. and windows was fine like
this!

I've set up web servers and ftp servers in windows with 3rd party
apps.. Tiny apps, they didn't create any new OS users at all. the http
serevr is read only of course. And the FTP server let me choose which
users have which permissions. The users I think were within the ftp
server, not users of the OS - if that's what linux would do i don't
know.. It was very simple. Setting up those servers had absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with multiuser abilities in the OS.

So if windows does it fine without making a web server user for that
3rd party web server, or involving itself in such multiuser issues I
don't see why linux has to do anything of the sort. It has nothing to
do with multiuser.. at least not in windows. And that was fine for me..
Simple and made sense.



Nevertheless, I shall keep playing with the linux command line, since
I am technically inclined, and I do have some time on my hands!

I'm sure that the more you play the more you'll come to appreciate its power
and usefulness.

And linux users keep insisting that I will see the light.

You will. :-) When the light bulb finally comes on, you'll see the light.

So I will dig deeper and broader.

Considering what i've described, as linux annoyances. I'd say windows
annoyances are better documented, thanks to the thousands of people
complaining on usenet! With windows, the annoyances is usually found
and solved immediately! And if that fails - then reinstall the OS. And
that works!!

HAHA, right. Nothing like having to reinstall the OS because something has
gone bad. Sure makes keeping ones configurations, data and installed apps
fun to redo and redo and redo.

I wont' try the linux GUIs (I mean 'window managers'). I know if I did
i'd get so mad I could write a book critiquing them!

I was a KDE user for a long time and just didn't appreciate Gnome until I
started using it with Ubuntu. I must say, I'm impressed! As for eye-candy
it's pretty hard to beat E17. That's truly impressive.


I don't want eye candy!!! Maybe this is why linux GUIs are so bad!!
THey think window is successful because it's all eye candy.
somebody in an ms newsgroup, (maybe you), posted a youtube clip of a
3D linux desktop.. I was already put off trying a Linux GUI . But
tat one made me laugh. The last time that happened was picking up the
Linux Osbourne book, you might've seen the great big osbourne linux
reference.. it had a picture about linux being the future.. saying ..
well.. i won't ruin it.. if I had a working scanner i'd scan it in. It
was priceless. The funniest part was the linux fanatic wasn't kidding!
One day i'll posta reply to you with the picture.. I don't mind
looking at clips of pictures of linux GUIs. Especialyl recommended
ones. They are funny. It's using them that causes a lump in my throat!
Last time I tried a linux GUI I had a lot of work to do and the GUI
kept sliding off the screen. I can't remember what GUI it was, anyhow,
that was in 2002, I am still recovering. If that was a vid clip it'd
have been hilarious. I know, I know, "they've improved".. ;-) I bet
tthey said that in 2002. I'll wait a few more bundles of years before
I try another GUI. I'm more serious about the command line.






..

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Install Firefox questions
    ... > I would recommend to you that you wait for your harddisk and install SuSE ... I downloaded using Windows ... LINUX was in 1996 when I had a triple boot system (DOS, LINUX, and ... I never crashed DOS except once intentionally, ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: OT: who said on this group "try Linux" a while back?
    ... took an old 120gig drive and put latest release of Ubuntu on it. ... linux will *never* be anything other than a tech nerd curiosity. ... setting in windows that I couldnt do with a few mouse clicks. ... terminal, paste in this command, job done" doesn't matter which DE you are ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Why complicated directory structure in Linux
    ... the internal calls of DOS. ... Then came Windows and it was a kludge not a wrapper on DOS. ... The one that got me to linux was the regular disk crashes where I had to ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: dpreview
    ... etc.) using the windows GUI? ... *Everything* can be done via command line. ... why would I bother with a text Linux command. ... stronger USM than you would, blend with the opacity of the layer. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: newbie: I/O with nasm
    ... A program that starts with "main" and is linked with gcc has the "_start" label in the C startup code, and the stack is slightly different when we get control at "main". ... Dos is *very* different, as you point out. ... Working on up the (Linux) stack, the list of command line argument pointers is terminated with a zero. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)