Booming or Fuming? Are You Alive? Or Are You Fading Away?!

[guard]

******* Are YOU Booming Or Fuming? *******

There is nothing that will stand without a Sure Foundation.

Although it seems easy to write a quick script in great haste
with no documentation to solve today's urgent problem...
it becomes a horrifying mess later when you (or someone else)
have to reap that nightmare code which you have sown!

*******

Joe Fumer suddenly cries out,

"I just can't see why I need to spend the time!
It's ONLY a little batch file!!"

"Well..., Joe...

Remember that quick backup script that you thought
was working but it turned out that only changed
files were being copied each night?!

A Sure Foundation would have shined the light on
that problem the first day!"

"OK. Tell me more."

*******

If you're stuck in the Pit of Pity,
wasting your precious time slugging
through the Crater of Confusion...

___ DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! ___

The confidence and reliability that we have built with
our Command Library has opened a new world for Windows
System Administrators. It is no longer necessary to
write a confusing mess of tangled code. The resources
in the Library allow self-documenting shell scripts
that really work!

One brick at a time, we are building a Tower of Knowledge
for writing .bat/.cmd files. A comprehensive

Single File Solution,

filled to the brim with answers for the most grievous
tribulations that face the Windows Admin each day,
while still retaining the look and feel of a simple
batch file. And we're doing it without third party
utilities of any kind!

You only need one file---NTCmdLib.cmd!

So leave that old darkness of confusion at the foot of
Mount Knowledge and follow the Path of Understanding
to the TOP, where clearness reigns!

*******

There's been a Flying Rumor going around about Big Things
coming, and we can now confirm that it's true!

There ARE new Advanced and Expert Libraries coming!

Here's a taste of what we have prepared!

*******

The shining star of our Command Library is the
"Mounted Command", or Mt/\Cmd for short.

This is a section of Reliable, Cross-Platform Scripting Code
that has been optimized and compressed into a single line.
Then, this little jewel is saved to an environment variable
for instant access. The variable is named to "sound like what
it does" so when you use it in your script, the script becomes
self-documenting!

For example, the code for the command .GetFree is stored in the
variable %.GetFree%. This command retrieves the free space of
the current disk drive, displays it to the console, and saves
the value to variable %#Free%.

More info about .GetFree is at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/MtCmds/GetValue/GetFree.htm).

*******

One of our biggest challenges in constructing these commands
is that there was not an easy way to specify parameters.
The object of the command's actions had to be determined by
one of three methods.

1. Prefixing the arguments before the Mt/\Cmd

COPY Source Destination %.Silent%

2. Appending the arguments after the Mt/\Cmd

%.TimeEcho% Job started on Server1

3. Implying the argument based on some known parameter
of the console window at the time of execution.
For example, .GetFree reports on the current drive.

CD /D C:\
%.GetFree%

*******

When the required task had to "parse" a parameter,
we always needed multiple lines of code and had to
implement the next best thing: a $FUNCTION within
the Command Library.

You still call the $FUNCTION with a one line command

%.Call% $FUNCTION Parm1 Parm2 [...]

But a trip to the disk drive, and through the
Command Library was required, which is slightly
slower than our cached Mt/\Cmd code.

*******

But what if we could change the parameters anywhere inside
a command, while still having the code "preloaded" and
instantly available?! Well--now we can!! The answer is the
Twin^^Peaks MountCommand, or M^^C for short.

And it's a major leap over the wall!

In essence, this is a two-step command.

Step 1: Load the input variable with one or more parameters

Step 2: Execute the M^^C while dynamically expanding the
input variable from Step 1.

For CONSISTENCY, the input variable name is always the same as
the Twin^^Peaks command name, without the "." prefix.

Let's look at an example.

*******

A frequent SysAdmin need is to check the accessibility of a remote
system by using the native Ping utility. A new M^^C called .Alive
provides a CONSISTENT self-documenting method to check one machine,
a list of machines or an entire range of IP addresses.

The variable which contains the input is called, of course, %Alive%.

The scripting code is stored in variable %.Alive%.

Since the input is expanded at runtime, you can set the input value
and run the command within the same line of code! Delayed Variable
Expansion is not necessary, allowing full compatibility across
NT/2K/XP/K3. The self-documenting code looks like this:

FOR /L %%A IN (1,1,254) DO @(
(SET "Alive=10.7.7.%%A")
(%.Alive%)
)

..Alive takes the internal Ping command up on Mount Knowledge!
The code above will check the entire address range from
10.7.7.1 through 10.7.7.254, reporting on each address in turn.

But it get even better than that!

Success is reported to STDOUT, failure is reported to STDERR.
So, to see only the addresses that are active, suppress STDERR
using the %.Kity% {Keep-It-To-Yourself] command.

FOR /L %%A IN (1,1,254) DO @(
(SET "Alive=10.7.7.%%A")
(%.Alive% %.Kity%)
)

To see only the machines that are inaccessible,
suppress STDOUT using the %.Quiet% command.

FOR /L %%A IN (1,1,254) DO @(
(SET "Alive=10.7.7.%%A")
(%.Alive% %.Quiet%)
)

Additional examples are on the pre-release ".Alive Page" at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/MtCmds/CrystalClear/Alive.htm).

There is also a link there to download the pre-release code
and test it on your machine.

To look up the syntax of any other "Mounted Commands"
used in the examples, see the Master Catalog at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/MasterCatalog.asp).

*******

Joe Fumer has been reading intently and thinking about
the batch he uses to check the company's server farm.

"You mean--uh--you mean, I can replace all of my

Ping | Find "Reply"

stuff with something like:

FOR /F %%A IN (FumerFarm.txt) DO @(
(SET "Alive=%%A")
(%.Silent% %.Alive%)
(%.ifNotOK% ECHO:Meltdown on Server %%A!)
)

"Yes! YES!! Y-E-S!!!"

"And I can run it on any machine in the house?!
Even my old NT4 Servers?!"

"You sure can, Joe!
You're really soakin' up that knowledge now!"

"I see the light! I see the light!
How do I sign up? When can I get my hands
on that new Command Library?!"

*******

The new Command Libraries are nearing final trials!

When they come out as *Pure^Gold*,
we'll release them to the world!

The clock is ticking, so you better start clicking!!!

Make speed over to "The Almost Free Price List"!
at (http://TheSystemGuard.com/AlmostFree.asp)

D-O I-T N-O-W !!!

Or risk being left behind in the fumes!

*******

This is the public version of "Booming or Fuming?".

To get your own copy, which includes special offers,
available ONLY to subscribers, go to
(http://BoomingOrFuming.com). It's FREE!

Space is limited and time is short, so reserve your spot today!

*******

Communication Is Business! We Master It With Knowledge!

COME ON UP WITH US!

And Congratulations On Your Decision To
RISE ABOVE
THE REST!!!

*******

-tsg
__________________________________________________________
Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com)

 

[Klaus Meinhard]

Hallo guard,

So leave that old darkness of confusion at the foot of
Mount Knowledge and follow the Path of Understanding
to the TOP, where clearness reigns!

From over here it really seems the religious right is getting the upper
hand in the US

while still retaining the look and feel of a simple
batch file. And we're doing it without third party
utilities of any kind!

Am I dense or what? I still have to download from you (a 3rd party, if I
ever saw one) a file that could be called "utility" without any qualms.

If you really meant your fire and brimstone sermon humorous, as I
suspect, I missed some smileys thrown in.

For example, the code for the command .GetFree is stored in the
variable %.GetFree%. This command retrieves the free space of
the current disk drive, displays it to the console, and saves
the value to variable %#Free%.

Using 4DOS, the info you seek can be accessed using the @diskfree[]
function, with options to specify drive, size of free space in Bytes,
Kilo- or Megabytes.

COPY Source Destination %.Silent%

4DOS' Copy command has a /Q (quiet) switch

2. Appending the arguments after the Mt/\Cmd

%.TimeEcho% Job started on Server1

ECHO Job started on server at %_time

3. Implying the argument based on some known parameter
of the console window at the time of execution.
For example, .GetFree reports on the current drive.

CD /D C:\
%.GetFree%

See above.

And so on, and so on....

You are really reinventing the wheel, which might be nice if it was much
sleeker. But your method is sadly much more clumsy than 4DOS, and from
what I've seen 4DOS can easily match each of your examples.

The clock is ticking, so you better start clicking!!!

Make speed over to "The Almost Free Price List"!
at (http://TheSystemGuard.com/AlmostFree.asp)

4DOS is totally _FREE_

D-O I-T N-O-W !!!

Or risk being left behind in the fumes!

Do you sell snake oil or batch enhancers?

Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com)

Hallelujah, and all the rest. :-(

 

[guard]

Am I dense or what? I still have to download from you (a 3rd party, if I
ever saw one) a file that could be called "utility" without any qualms.

The single .cmd file which is a Command Library
consists of ONLY scripting code using ONLY
the native commands and utilities that are present
on all NT-based operating systems.

It is a highly optimized and extremely intelligent batch file.

It is NOT--a third party utility.

In practice, it has been accepted and used in the same
manner as retrieving scripting code from a newsgroup or
other online forum. Only much better.

The sysadmin can actually understand how the code works,
can learn at their own pace in as much detail as their
time schedule permits, and can extend the Command Library
by creating their own "Mounted Commands".

This makes a script look like the one at this link.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot.cmdsrc.htm).
That application (Snapshot) is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.

*******

The vocal minority that post answers in public newsgroups
do not represent the vast majority of sysadmins. No matter
how good the answer, it is always specific to today's crisis
and does NOT provide a foundation to move forward.

Finding 1000 answers to a question after "Googling" does not
give someone an answer. Just more questions. And every
time the same question is answered again, in a slightly
different way, the next search returns even more hits.

Libraries of solutions are common in most programming languages.

Before we released ours publicly in late 2002, the world of
batch scripting, arguably the one with the most non-programmers,
did not have one. Now it does. And there's no turning back.

*******

The reason for the HUGE success of the Command Library
is that there are no changes of any kind needed to run
a script that uses library commands.

No installation.
No uninstallation.
No multiple files to keep track of.
No "my script needs xxx utility to run".
No "do step1 for NT, step2 for 2000"

One line loads the entire Library:

CALL [drive:][path]ntlib.cmd /Init
or
CALL \\server\sharename\ntlib.cmd /Init

And, since the Sure Foundation is in place to support
virtually unlimited resources, we can continue to extend
the features without sacrificing performance, and while
maintaining ONLY ONE FILE to keep track of.

You write your script ONE TIME.
You solve your problem ONE TIME.
You take the solution and use it again and again.

And...you actually understand the code!

*******

If you're a small network "part-time" admin with limited
time for learning anything new, you get self-documenting
scripts that build on your basic knowledge of batch
scripting without adding any complexity to your life.

If you're in a larger network, you get a standard
set of tools to use in login scripts and other
administrative scripting that helps to keep all of
your departmental sysadmins on the same page.
The more experienced ones can share their knowledge
with those that are learning without having to explain
every detail of convoluted shell scripting command syntax.

And, if you're an integrator or a consultant, you get to
build a scripting toolbox that can run on any of your
clients machines, including those "no 3rd party software"
boxes. Best of all, you can customize anyone of your
scripts, turn it over to the local sysadmin, and they'll
actually be able to understand what you wrote AND
maintain it themselves when you're gone.

*******

You are really reinventing the wheel, which might be nice if it was much
sleeker. But your method is sadly much more clumsy than 4DOS, and from
what I've seen 4DOS can easily match each of your examples.

4DOS is totally _FREE_

4DOS is a binary executable. There are many solutions of
this type. Most admins have a toolbox full of small
utilities to perform command line administration.

Even when using external tools is allowed, the growing toolbox
of utilities can be difficult to manage. Especially in large
sites where multiple admins use different tools to solve the
same problems. Not only is this redundant work, but it limits
the ability to reuse the corporate resource (their scripting code)
in another department.

The Command Library is an NT-based shell script that requires
no other resources besides itself to provide it's services.
It is an entirely new way of writing shell scripts.

The functionality of many separate tools is integrated
into ONE FILE, including an expandable help system that
does not impact the performance of the code. And, it's
constantly being updated to the same features as many
command line tools, without downloading anything and
without having to keep track of multiple single-purpose
tools from multiple authors.

The Command Library, with it's Sure Foundation, is the
result of thousands of hours of coding and testing as
well as over 20 years of knowledge in how people
actually maintain networks and systems at all levels.

The Advanced Library is FREE for unlimited
personal or commercial use.
(http://ntlib.com)

The Expert Library is "Almost Free" at $9 or less.
Price breaks start at qty 5, and the cost can get
as low as $2/system for larger sites.
(http://NTCmdLib.com)

*******

The world of NT-based shell scripting now has a
Command Library with hundreds of highly optimized
cross-platform solutions. THERE IS NO TURNING BACK!

You can stay where you are, or you can...

COME ON UP WITH US!

And Congratulations On Your Decision To
RISE ABOVE
THE REST!!!

*******

-tsg

/-----------------+---------------+----------------------\
| COMPATIBILITY | CLARITY | SPEED |
| Write code ONCE | Make it clear | THEN...Make it fast! |
\-----------------+---------------+----------------------/
400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/default.asp#MasterCommandList)

 

[Klaus Meinhard]

guard,

The single .cmd file which is a Command Library
consists of ONLY scripting code using ONLY
the native commands and utilities that are present
on all NT-based operating systems.

It is a highly optimized and extremely intelligent batch file.

It is NOT--a third party utility.

I'm always asking myself who is the second party in this case, but
anyway: anything one has not written himself is a third party utility in
my definition, but religious convictions vary

In practice, it has been accepted and used in the same
manner as retrieving scripting code from a newsgroup or
other online forum

.... which would be 3rd party code, too.

This makes a script look like the one at this link.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot.cmdsrc.htm).
That application (Snapshot) is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.

Admittedly impressive

Nonetheless you have to work within the limited scope of CMD.EXE, which
lacks many features that can be found even in a DOS command interpreter
like 4DOS.

 

[Bob I]

TAKE A HIKE!

 

[Bill Stewart]

(Cross postings removed, again, for what seems like the 50th time)

It is NOT--a third party utility.
...
The Expert Library is "Almost Free" at $9 or less. Price breaks start
at qty 5, and the cost can get as low as $2/system for larger sites.

John,

Your seeming arrogance aside, every environment that I have worked in
(both US government and commercial sites) classifies 3rd party software
as code that is written and maintained by someone else. Especially if
you have to pay for it. I strongly suggest you reconsider this as a
selling point.

Also, I recommend that you post only to appropriate newsgroups. For
example (and I have said this several times, but you don't seem to be
paying attention), alt.msdos.batch is not an appropriate newsgroup since
your stuff is cmd.exe-specific.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Ted Davis]

I'm always asking myself who is the second party in this case, but
anyway: anything one has not written himself is a third party utility in
my definition, but religious convictions vary

The terminology is from legal contract language. In this case the
first and second parties are the user and Microsoft - I'm not sure
which is which, but I think the user would be the second party (based
on MS's insistance that it really owns and controls your OS and even
hardware).



T.E.D. ([email protected])
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.

 

[Al Dunbar [MS-MVP]]

The question should be "are you booming or fumigating", as all batch script
is capable of having bugs - even the guard's code.

/Al

 

[Al Dunbar [MS-MVP]]

Hallo guard,


Am I dense or what? I still have to download from you (a 3rd party, if I
ever saw one) a file that could be called "utility" without any qualms.

If you really meant your fire and brimstone sermon humorous, as I
suspect, I missed some smileys thrown in.

There are not enough smileys in the world to make the megalomania seem
humourous - it remains just very sad.

Sadder still, this self-proclaimed saviour of all batch programmers seems
truly disinterested in anyone's opinion than his own to the point of never
really engaging in objective discussion.


/Al

 

[Al Dunbar [MS-MVP]]

guard,


I'm always asking myself who is the second party in this case, but
anyway: anything one has not written himself is a third party utility in
my definition, but religious convictions vary

A megalomaniac would be, by definition, unable to contemplate the
possibility that he is anything other than the first party, nor that there
are any parties other than himself.

/Al

 

[Al Dunbar [MS-MVP]]

The terminology is from legal contract language. In this case the
first and second parties are the user and Microsoft - I'm not sure
which is which, but I think the user would be the second party (based
on MS's insistance that it really owns and controls your OS and even
hardware).

In legal documents, the numbered parties would be named to avoid
ambiguities.

/Al

 

[Al Dunbar [MS-MVP]]

(Cross postings removed, again, for what seems like the 50th time)


John,

Your seeming arrogance aside,

"Seeming"? You give far too much credit.

every environment that I have worked in
(both US government and commercial sites) classifies 3rd party software
as code that is written and maintained by someone else. Especially if
you have to pay for it. I strongly suggest you reconsider this as a
selling point.

It is a waste of keystrokes to try to reason with someone who is as sure of
his own absolute correctness as this person is.

Also, I recommend that you post only to appropriate newsgroups. For
example (and I have said this several times, but you don't seem to be
paying attention), alt.msdos.batch is not an appropriate newsgroup since
your stuff is cmd.exe-specific.

You are not the only one to have attempted to explain these simple facts.
Presumably, the guy finds simple facts beneath him.

/Al

 

[guard]

guard,


... which would be 3rd party code, too.

Only until the person using it COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDS
the code. Then, they can customize it to their
particular needs and it is no longer third-party.

It is THEIR CODE to run on THEIR MACHINE.

But this is ONLY true if the sysadmin really understands
the code they have retrieved, and that they are now using.
The old way of...

-cut-and-paste-it
-and-it-works-right-now
-and-I-sort-of-get-it
-and-now-I-can-forget-it
-until-I-will-regret-it

....makes the code stay third-party!

Our Command Library is simply a very efficient way
to distribute this knowledge. It provides an
ever-increasing collection of commonly needed resources
using a standard syntax that "feels" like a batch file.

And it does this in a SINGLE FILE while staying within
the bounds of using ONLY native commands. In addition,
we use ONLY the Common Command Set which exists across
NT/2K/XP/K3.

This actually eliminates the need to write convoluted
code that is full of special cases and exceptions just
to get a script to work on multiple platforms. It
provides CONSISTENCY that is normally found only in
more advanced programming/scripting languages.

Admittedly impressive

Obviously, we agree.

You should try the Advanced Library and see for yourself.

Nonetheless you have to work within the limited scope of CMD.EXE, which
lacks many features that can be found even in a DOS command interpreter
like 4DOS.

The limited scope of Cmd.exe and its related utilities
is the source of much fuming. But that is what is
installed on millions of systems around the world.
And these limitations are one of the primary reasons
to use a Command Library that extends and expands
this "limited scope" to a whole new world!

You can get The Full Story at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/NoMoreFuming.asp)

*******

-tsg
__________________________________________________________
Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com)

 

[Klaus Meinhard]

guard,

Our Command Library is simply a very efficient way
to distribute this knowledge. It provides an
ever-increasing collection of commonly needed resources
using a standard syntax that "feels" like a batch file.

.... if you feel you _must_ stay within the bounds of a rather limited
command processor, only because it comes free with the OS.

And it does this in a SINGLE FILE while staying within
the bounds of using ONLY native commands. In addition,
we use ONLY the Common Command Set which exists across
NT/2K/XP/K3.

.... so we are not on topic here

This actually eliminates the need to write convoluted
code that is full of special cases and exceptions just
to get a script to work on multiple platforms. It
provides CONSISTENCY that is normally found only in
more advanced programming/scripting languages.

These exact words could be an advert for 4NT, the (commercial) power
command processor for the NT/XT range of OSs.

Obviously, we agree.

.... but not as much as you seem to think. I'd much rather work with 4NT,
which allows painless (and short!) access to all internally available
info (the OS has much more info than CMD makes available easily),
provides logic structure elements like DO - ENDDO,
IFF - THEN - ELSE / ELSEIFF - ENDIFF, SWITCH - CASE - DEFAULT -
ENDSWITCH, GOSUB - RETURN, lots of inbuilt commands like TOUCH, LOG,
IFTP, SENDMAIL, GLOBAL, EXCEPT, for which _you_ would need external,
often 3rd party utils . Note that most of these features are
available under free 4DOS too, that 4DOS runs not only on the DOS / WIN3
/WIN 9N /ME platforms, but quite well under NT / XP too.

The limited scope of Cmd.exe and its related utilities
is the source of much fuming. But that is what is
installed on millions of systems around the world.

Obviously, we agree

And these limitations are one of the primary reasons
to use a Command Library that extends and expands
this "limited scope" to a whole new world!

If, for any reason, you are unable to use 4NT or the free 4DOS command
interpreter, your tools lib may come in handy.


--
Klaus Meinhard

Free 4DOS download: http://download.jpsoft.com/4dos/4dos.exe

4DOS Installation FAQ:
http://groups.google.de/[email protected]&rnum=1

 

[Al Dunbar [MS-MVP]]

guard,

The syntax required to use their product, while it may technically consist
purely of statements processed completely by the native batch command
processor, I can state that, for me at least, it does not "feel" at all like
a batch file.

... if you feel you _must_ stay within the bounds of a rather limited
command processor, only because it comes free with the OS.

IMHO, I believe that they don't want anyone else to stay with the free
command processor - they want us to buy their third party product to layer
on top of it. The fact that it is written with pure batch seems more a
statement about the mentality behind their work than anything to do with
simplicity or elegance.

This seems a nice concept for an experiment, but one that has gone way off
the rails.

... so we are not on topic here

A waste of breath. They are not looking to be seen as good netizens here,
just looking at increasing the hitcounts on their website, regardless of the
numbers they annoy in the process.

I tried it and immediately ran into a problem with it. I have also seen
others post comments about its problems. Hey, guard, it is not PERFECT, OK?
You aim for CONSISTENCY, which is laudable, but you do not reach it ALL of
the time, and you force your users into writing their own code in a style
that some of us consider painfully awkward, and dissimilar to simple batch
code.

These exact words could be an advert for 4NT, the (commercial) power
command processor for the NT/XT range of OSs.

Yes, that is another competitive third party tool. I choose neither for my
own particular reasons. But if forced to choose one or the other there is no
doubt in my mind that I would go for the product from the company with a
track record, who seems to prefer to let the quality of their offering speak
for itself or through customer testimonials, eschewing the breast-bleating
and attitude of mental superiority that we sometimes see here from guard!
;-)

Obviously, we agree

I don't agree. Certainly the newsgroups indicate that it takes newbies a
while to get up to speed with it. But I challenge the following notions:

A) that millions around the world are fuming as a result.

Cite your references and data as to the numbers. Also, what is actually
meant by the term "fuming"? It is suggestive to me of an inability to face
and effectively deal with certain realities of life, exascerbated by an
unfounded belief that an external solution will fix it.Your prozac (TM) for
the masses is just as effective when either is taken without addressing the
underlying problems.

B) that, even for those who have experienced some sort of problems coding in
batch, a product such as the systemguard's actually releases them from these
annoyances without adding new ones.

Let's face it, cmd and batch have their limitations. That is why we have all
developed our own coding style to insulate us from any iregularities. I
choose to use my own batch subroutines, which I code and debug myself, while
you are asking that I let you do the hard bits for me, at the expense of
having to learn (and use!) a new set of command features whose syntax I find
overly cumbersome. Sorry, but no sale.

As well, it is perhaps not to be expected that everyone and her dog will
program in batch. Many of those that have difficulty will, I expect, have
difficulty coding to systemguard. Conversely, those with the mental ability
to use your product effectively, most probably also have the ability to deal
effectively with batch itself.

Crap! if you'll pardon the word. Those limitations result also in other
choices, many of which are the right choice, and righter than yours in the
context.

If, for any reason, you are unable to use 4NT or the free 4DOS command
interpreter, your tools lib may come in handy.

I develop scripting applications that are totally infeasible in batch, and I
cannot use 4NT or 4DOS in my environment for a variety of reasons, the
3rd-party rule being only one. Even if the 3rd-party rule would allow me to
use systemguard I would not. In addition to personal dis-preference for the
product, it is the underlying inapplicability of the batch environment
itself to the application domain.

So when an adhoc batch script starts to experience scope creep, I switch to
an alternative platform more suitable to the problem domain. In most cases
this turns out to be WSH. And, yes, I know, even that platform has inherent
problems. I will end by saying that no platform is problem free, and, even
if some were, systemguard would not be on the list.

/Al

 

[guard]

guard,


... if you feel you _must_ stay within the bounds of a rather limited
command processor, only because it comes free with the OS.

The limited command processor (Cmd.exe), and it's associated
native utilities, suffer MUCH MORE from inconsistency across
platforms than from their perceived limitations. Many of
these "limitations" do not really exist, except in the minds
of those who write or use a product that claims to overcome
them.

For example, it is a common misconception that the length
of any single command line is limited under Cmd.exe.

However, this limitation is related to a physical line
of code, not a logical line. Except in cases where a
single chunk of data is greater than the line limit,
the native processor does just fine. It is quite
difficult to write, test and maintain a 3000 character
command that is on one physical line.

However, we have many "Mounted Commands" which are single
logical lines that are in excess of 40K when fully
commented! They are still processed as one command by
Cmd.exe under all NT-based operating systems. Their
performance is similar to "compiled code" because the
limitation of "reading one line at a time" that is
associated with "interpreted code" is effectively bypassed.

The interpreter makes ONE READ of 40,000+ bytes and then
executes the code!

These exact words could be an advert for 4NT, the (commercial) power
command processor for the NT/XT range of OSs.

....as well a wide range of other options for scripting.

The difference is that the Command Library runs on every
NT-based machine, right out of the box! It enhances and
extends what's already there, without requiring ANYTHING
ELSE besides itself. In the process, it teaches the
SysAdmin how to write and maintain readable code with the
assurance that their efforts will not be in vain.

When they solve the problem, it will be solved for good.
The code that they write will be readable and consistent.

I'd much rather work with 4NT,
which allows painless (and short!) access to all internally available
info (the OS has much more info than CMD makes available easily),

Short is not necessarily good.

Scripts automate things. That can be very good or VERY BAD!

We have to trust the computer to do the work. But a person
must provide detailed instructions to avoid MUCH FUMING!
Providing detailed instructions does not come naturally but
is learned over time, usually through much trial and effort.
After all, the script will do exactly what you tell it to do,
but not necessarily what you want it to do. Extensive
commenting and well structured code is essential to
maintaining any application over time.

Once again, the reason the library has been so well received,
is that it provides a well thought out structure that those
who are new to programming (in any language) can easily
understand. This is a VERY LARGE group of people.

For those used to writing in higher level languages that
occasionally need to write a shell script, the library
smoothes out the bumps of incompatibility that exist among
NT-Based OS's, allowing a well-documented, easily understood,
shell script to be written quickly.

The OS has an enormous amount of information that IS
available easily if:

1. you know where to look
2. you know how to get it out
3. you know how to (re)package it to meet your needs

There are thousands of products, both commercial and
free, that address this issue and are in the toolbox
of SysAdmins everywhere. Each one solves the problem
in a slightly different way, and behaves differently
under different conditions.

Our Command Library addresses the core problem of limited,
incompatible native command-line capabilities by providing
a SINGLE FILE that will eventually replace many of the tools
in the toolbox with one solution that behaves CONSISTENTLY.

We have already have started to make this information available
using our Command Library (over 400 commands to date)
and we have laid down the Sure Foundation to get the
rest of it.

*******

This is a BRAND NEW WORLD!

You don't have to slug through using outdated
ideas from the last millennium!

There is a MUCH BETTER way!

Try the Advanced Library FREE from (http://ntlib.com) or
the Expert Library ("Almost Free" from (http://NTCmdLib.com).

It WILL change your life!

*******

-tsg

/-----------------+---------------+----------------------\
| COMPATIBILITY | CLARITY | SPEED |
| Write code ONCE | Make it clear | THEN...Make it fast! |
\-----------------+---------------+----------------------/
400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/default.asp#MasterCommandList)

 

[guard]

A few clarifications:

The syntax required to use their product, while it may technically consist
purely of statements processed completely by the native batch command
processor, I can state that, for me at least, it does not "feel" at all like
a batch file.

For those who would like to see for themselves,
take a moment to see some FREE sample code at
(http://ntlib.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot.cmdsrc.htm).

The above application is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.
Request your FREE copy at (http://ntlib.com).

IMHO, I believe that they don't want anyone else to stay with the free
command processor - they want us to buy their third party product to layer
on top of it.

The Advanced Command Library, as well as many of our other tools,
are completely FREE for personal or commercial use. The Expert
Versions of these tools are "Almost Free" and generally cost
less than $9 per system.

This seems a nice concept for an experiment, but one that has gone way off
the rails.

The concept of standardized code libraries is common in
almost all programming languages. We have brought that
same vision to NT-based batch programming.

just looking at increasing the hitcounts on their website, regardless of the
numbers they annoy in the process.

TheSystemGuard.com does not contain any advertising of any
kind. We are not interested in merely "hit count".

We feed the hungry with knowledge WHILE we teach the recipe!

<SNIP> without addressing the underlying problems.

The underlying problem is, of course, the inconsistent
nature of writing code, especially cross-platform
shell scripting code for Windows NT-based platforms.

This is made even more difficult by the fact that many of
those who write "simple batch files" are not experienced
with the "Syntax Ditches" of the shell scripting environment.

And, finally, the biggest problem of all is the enormous
volume of "FREE Answers" that can now be obtained from
everywhere. This is the real problem.

We address it by providing:

a CONSISTENT answer
in a CONSISTENT format
from a CONSISTENT source.

Solve the problem once and then go on to a different problem.

Those that actually USE the Command Library receive these
benefits and learn how to create their own CONSISTENT
solutions. They have "Risen Above The Rest"!

Progress is only made by those who are willing to change.

The "rest" get left behind.

Let's face it, cmd and batch have their limitations. That is why we have all
developed our own coding style to insulate us from any iregularities. I
choose to use my own batch subroutines, which I code and debug myself,

<SNIP>

Many others do not yet have the experience and/or
time to "code and debug" their own routines. And
while they are learning, they still need to solve
their immediate problems. Well-documented and
CONSISTENT code is the key to avoiding disaster.

There are many who can write code to solve just
about any problem, given the time. However, we
all use standardized code written by others for
common tasks. It saves time and money.

And it's just common sense.

I would rather type

COPY Source Destination

than to write 100 lines of code to copy
the file sector by sector, just because
I can. Especially, if I'm going to use
this same command over and over.


Our Command Library provides the Sure Foundation
that our customers build their houses on. It is
a COMPLETELY NEW way of writing shell scripts!

*******

-tsg
__________________________________________________________
Are you spooked by the "Doubts of Slowdoms"?!
You can dig yourself out of another man's doubt!
GO AHEAD! Be the first to pull out from the Net of Fear.
(http://TheSystemGuard.com)

 

[David Candy]

But you are insane!!!!!!

 

[Al Dunbar]

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
But you are insane!!!!!!

Certifiably so. I believe I may have used the term "megalomania" to describe
him recently; reading his response below to me (which I hadn't seen
previously - perhaps I killfiled him) makes me want to upgrade the diagnosis
to "GIGalomania".

For those who would like to see for themselves,
take a moment to see some FREE sample code at
(http://ntlib.com/Scripts/Snapshot/TSG_Snapshot.cmdsrc.htm).

Having already seen such code, seeing it again only re-inforces my above
observation.

The above application is included with the FREE ntlib.cmd.
Request your FREE copy at (http://ntlib.com).


The Advanced Command Library, as well as many of our other tools,
are completely FREE for personal or commercial use. The Expert
Versions of these tools are "Almost Free" and generally cost
less than $9 per system.

Anyone who thinks that my statement that they want us to buy their product
is disproved by the free components, or the seemingly low price (don't
forget to multiply $9 by the number of workstations you have), knows nothing
of the concept of the "loss leader".

The concept of standardized code libraries is common in
almost all programming languages.

There is nothing wrong with the concept, and nothing wrong with applying its
principles with any platform. An attempt to do so to raise the scope of a
generally limited platform (even by your own admission) to something far
beyond its capabilities is where this particular experiment has gone off the
rails. Mind you, you *could* put the train back on the track by dropping the
messianic attitude.

We have brought that
same vision to NT-based batch programming.

A megalomaniacal statement if ever there was one. Others have done admirable
work in the field without beating their chests about "bringing a vision" to
the field as if you were the first to actually understand what batch
programming is all about.

TheSystemGuard.com does not contain any advertising of any
kind. We are not interested in merely "hit count".

We feed the hungry with knowledge WHILE we teach the recipe!

A GIGalomaniacal statement if ever there was one. Get help for your messiah
complex.

<SNIP> without addressing the underlying problems.

The underlying problem is, of course, the inconsistent
nature of writing code, especially cross-platform
shell scripting code for Windows NT-based platforms.

This is made even more difficult by the fact that many of
those who write "simple batch files" are not experienced
with the "Syntax Ditches" of the shell scripting environment.

And, finally, the biggest problem of all is the enormous
volume of "FREE Answers" that can now be obtained from
everywhere. This is the real problem.

There are germs of truth there, but...

We address it by providing:

a CONSISTENT answer
in a CONSISTENT format
from a CONSISTENT source.

.... but then you go and try to claim that you are the sole salvation for all
batch scripters everywhere. I have already pointed out that someone who can
actually script to your requirements could probably deal with batch only,
and that someone who doesn't understand what is going on in batch is not
likely to produce good code just because they user your library.

It would be nice to have a disinterested third party take a group of people
having the typical basic difficulties with batch, and actually determine if
they suddenly become effective and efficient scripters by being given your
library.

Solve the problem once and then go on to a different problem.

Those that actually USE the Command Library receive these
benefits and learn how to create their own CONSISTENT
solutions. They have "Risen Above The Rest"!

Another megalomaniacal comment. You should have taken the marketing course
where they teach that commercial slogans should probably not be crafted in
such a way as to demean everybody who is not using your product.

Progress is only made by those who are willing to change.

Granted. Of course, of all the people I have read on usenet, you seem the
*least likely* to change.

The "rest" get left behind.

Megalomaniac. I don't normally stoop to name calling, but reason has so far
been lacking as a tool here.

<SNIP>

Many others do not yet have the experience and/or
time to "code and debug" their own routines. And
while they are learning, they still need to solve
their immediate problems. Well-documented and
CONSISTENT code is the key to avoiding disaster.

I would really like to meet someone who lacked the time or inclination to
*progress* by learning more about what they are basing their careers on who
have been turned into effective scripters through the use of your library.

There are many who can write code to solve just
about any problem, given the time. However, we
all use standardized code written by others for
common tasks. It saves time and money.

And it's just common sense.

Yes. I often benefit greatly from the good work of others. There is so much
useful info out there that I fortunately do not find it necessary to turn to
a megalomaniac for help. I also have this niggling little feeling that
someone with your obvious blind spots may not be the best guide one could
have.

I would rather type

COPY Source Destination

than to write 100 lines of code to copy
the file sector by sector, just because
I can. Especially, if I'm going to use
this same command over and over.

Sure, but I never asked you to do something that stupid. I have seen people
get carried away bending over backwards to eke out some batch script to do
what to many would seem impossible. Some succeed, and to me, that is an
indication of their enginuity, though not necessarily an indication that
this was the best platform to use.

Our Command Library provides the Sure Foundation
that our customers build their houses on. It is
a COMPLETELY NEW way of writing shell scripts!

That would be compelling if COMPLETELY NEW was a sufficient reason on its
own to do something.

/Al

 

[guard]

Anyone who thinks that my statement that they want us to buy their product
is disproved by the free components, or the seemingly low price (don't
forget to multiply $9 by the number of workstations you have), knows nothing
of the concept of the "loss leader".

Of course we want people to purchase our
"Almost Free" products. And most of those
who actually try the FREE versions, do.

But there are also significant numbers of SysAdmins
around the world that use only the Completely FREE
Advanced Library and our other FREE tools to help
avoid fuming. And they also enjoy great success!

Many of the most frequent "Syntax Ditches" are
bridged in the Advanced Library. For example:

Determining the current OS and ServicePack
Renaming a file to the current date/time
Overcoming problems with delayed expansion

*******

The actual cost for the Expert Command Library starts
to drop at qty 5 or more. Our enterprise level clients
pay as low as $2/system! The Return On Investment is,
on average, less than ONE work day! More info is at
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/AlmostFree.asp)

There are germs of truth there, but...


I would really like to meet someone who lacked the time or inclination to
*progress* by learning more about what they are basing their careers on who
have been turned into effective scripters through the use of your library.

Most, but not all, SysAdmins would like to learn more about
automating repetitive tasks through scripting. But having
the time to actually learn is not a given. A great many
are also wearing many other hats, given the responsibility
for System Administration, without being given the tools,
time and training to do the job. And, finally, there are
a great many other skills necessary for good System
Administration, besides coding scripts.

The working environment that is typical for the extremely
limited group of active posters and answerers to a worldwide
Internet Newsgroup is NOT AT ALL SIMILAR to the daily
trials experienced by those who read the group but never
ask anything for fear of being publicly humiliated if
they didn't "Google" properly before asking their question.

Even those who are brave enough to ask a question risk being
sternly admonished if they don't ask in exactly the right
group and in exactly the right way. And this is before
taking into account the even larger SysAdmin Community
who do not even know what a newsgroup is.

There is often quite a high price...for free advice.

For a more complete list of the types of
SysAdmins that we have encountered, see
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/SAProfiles.htm).

Sure, but I never asked you to do something that stupid. I have seen people
get carried away bending over backwards to eke out some batch script to do
what to many would seem impossible. Some succeed, and to me, that is an
indication of their enginuity, though not necessarily an indication that
this was the best platform to use.

What makes shell scripting the platform of choice
is it's pervasiveness. The simple truth that a
well-documented cross-platform shell script will
run on ANY NT-based system, right out of the box,
is a very powerful reason for solving problems
this way.

This is similar to the fact that most web sites are
written to be optimally viewed with Internet Explorer.
There are better browsing platforms, but none that is
present on so many different systems. An extension
to IE that provides additional functionality is often
more likely to be used rather than changing an entire
organization to a new browser.

The Command Library builds on the existing software
base (Cmd.exe and it's associated utilities) and the
prevailing knowledge base (basic batch file skills)
without requiring new tools or new skill sets. Code
that is written using the library is self-documenting
and easily maintained, even by those with limited
knowledge and/or time.

With our Sure Foundation, we are, one by one, replacing
the need for a toolbox full of small .exe utilities with
A SINGLE .cmd FILE that provides the same features in a
CONSISTENT format.

We are also teaching the understanding of how this is done,
so those that use the library can extend it's features even
further in their own environment.

Solve the problem ONCE...completely.

Then, leave the repetition to the computer.

And go on to new challenges.

*******

Don't get stuck in the old way of...

-cut-and-paste-it
-and-it-works-right-now
-and-I-sort-of-get-it
-and-now-I-can-forget-it
-until-I-will-regret-it

....just because every one else does it that way.

*******

When the blind lead the blind,
they all fall into the ditch.

And every one is convinced that they
are going in the right direction.

Because they "think" that the person
in front of them can see!

Don't be a blind follower!

There IS a better way!

See (http://TheSystemGuard.com/NoMoreFuming.asp).

*******

-tsg

/-----------------+---------------+----------------------\
| COMPATIBILITY | CLARITY | SPEED |
| Write code ONCE | Make it clear | THEN...Make it fast! |
\-----------------+---------------+----------------------/
400+ command-line resources using ONLY native NT commands!
(http://TheSystemGuard.com/defaut.asp#MasterCommandList