[PL] links for P_SYSTEMUTILITIES.php page.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bjorn Simonsen
  • Start date Start date
B

Bjorn Simonsen

Susan, links for:
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/programs/P_SYSTEMUTILITIES.php>

(1) Need to update:
Easy ISO <http://www.tlfw.dk/TLFW/EasyISO.php>
The link you have is broken.

(2) Need to add, in same category:
Extract (commandline utility)
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gvollant/extract.htm>
Author: Gilles Vollant, France
main page: (program listed on "other tools" page)
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gvollant/>
<quote>
EXTRACT 2.10: Extracting files from disk image
With PKUNZIP UNARJ like syntaxe, you can
extract file from floppy image created by
WinImage (same author), DCF, DF, Sabdu,
and a lot of disk copy tool which make
disk image. Versions for DOS and for NT.
You can create image and inject file on it.
NOW FREEWARE!
</quote>

Links from post by:
(1) Goober<(2) me:<

Note: maybe? add new category on FileUtil page instead:
Archives: ISO
and there list all utilities that can handle
ISO files (extract, inject, create) but are not burners (?)

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
Bjorn said:
Susan, links for:
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/programs/P_SYSTEMUTILITIES.php>

(1) Need to update:
Easy ISO <http://www.tlfw.dk/TLFW/EasyISO.php>
The link you have is broken.

(2) Need to add, in same category:
Extract (commandline utility)
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gvollant/extract.htm>
Author: Gilles Vollant, France
main page: (program listed on "other tools" page)
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gvollant/>
<quote>
EXTRACT 2.10: Extracting files from disk image
With PKUNZIP UNARJ like syntaxe, you can
extract file from floppy image created by
WinImage (same author), DCF, DF, Sabdu,
and a lot of disk copy tool which make
disk image. Versions for DOS and for NT.
You can create image and inject file on it.
NOW FREEWARE!
</quote>

Links from post by:
(1) Goober<(2) me:<
Note: maybe? add new category on FileUtil page instead:
Archives: ISO
and there list all utilities that can handle
ISO files (extract, inject, create) but are not burners (?)
Click to expand...

Hi Bjorn,

Thanks much. I've saved your post, will add the apps after the PL2004 CD
is ready.

Perhaps I should add DOS (for command line utilities) in the column that
shows n.i. (no install) and n.r. (no registry entries)? What do you think?

SYSTEM UTILITIES is one of the larger categories - I wouldn't mind a bit
if we moved some of the subcategories to other pages.

OTOH CD and DVD ripping and burning apps are already split between
MULTIMEDIA and SYSTEM UTILITIES (I suspect some are in the wrong place).
IMO it's not desireable to have *some* apps with ISO capabilites on one
page and *some* on another. Is there a clean split?

Susan
 
Susan Bugher said:
Perhaps I should add DOS (for command line utilities) in the column that
shows n.i. (no install) and n.r. (no registry entries)? What do you think?
Click to expand...

I was going to suggest some similar. Specify when CLI type.

There are some folks who are dramatically allergic, seek to avoid all
encounter with the command line.

Then, for the other end, geeks like Bjorn. They find the CLI executables
to be sturdy watercraft for the native seas. ;)
 
omega said:
I was going to suggest some similar. Specify when CLI type.

There are some folks who are dramatically allergic, seek to avoid all
encounter with the command line.
Click to expand...

They're the ones I was mostly thinking of. :)
Then, for the other end, geeks like Bjorn. They find the CLI executables
to be sturdy watercraft for the native seas. ;)
Click to expand...

Aren't you in that group too? :) Whereas I have to stop and think hard
to remember what CLI stands for. . . :(

Anyway, glad to know you agree - I'll start noting DOS apps.

Susan
 
Susan Bugher said:
They're the ones I was mostly thinking of. :)
Click to expand...

They'll appreciate the protection. :)
Aren't you in that group too? :)
Click to expand...

More as a tourist. Usually like to have the natives pummel together the
canoe together for me. Then I lift my petticoats and get in. Yet I can
look brave when riding, so give me points there. ;)
Whereas I have to stop and think hard to remember what CLI stands
for. . . :(
Click to expand...

My own language is pretty inconsistent/ sloppy. Just, one thing, it's
that in NT world, the pendants are inclined to hand out citations when
we say DOS. So, what wording to use on the webpage? I venture you'd want
what's most widely understood, if it's a choice between that and technical
accuracy. I don't know if anyone will followup here, but I wouldn't mind
seeing some opinion on language use here, whether for the webpage entry,
or even general.
 
To Susan and Karen:


Good idea I think.

[...]
More as a tourist. Usually like to have the natives pummel together the
canoe together for me. Then I lift my petticoats and get in. Yet I can
look brave when riding, so give me points there. ;)
Click to expand...

I too do that. Flattered of course, but I do not consider my self a
commandline geek, just another tourist. I let others handle inventing
the wheel, more fond of cycling my self - or traveling in general, by
any means available, made by the natives or not, as long as it will
take me there without too much effort. Of course sometimes I find
walking uphill rewarding, just for the pleasure of getting there and
having done it. But most the time I'd stick to flat open country,
where distance is measured in clicks or double clicks :)
My own language is pretty inconsistent/ sloppy. Just, one thing, it's
that in NT world, the pendants are inclined to hand out citations when
we say DOS. So, what wording to use on the webpage? I venture you'd want
what's most widely understood, if it's a choice between that and technical
accuracy. I don't know if anyone will followup here, but I wouldn't mind
seeing some opinion on language use here, whether for the webpage entry,
or even general.
Click to expand...

IMO: CLI for Command Line Interface is more correct in that it covers
both DOS (command.com) and CMD (cmd.exe). Thus a more general, less
precise term. If a page indicates this app is CLI, then it is saying
nothing about which OS version it will run under. Whereas if the page
says DOS or CMD, different people will assume different things. CLI is
also more future oriented, it will stay current no matter what new
command processor people use, the interface is what matters, as in CLI
not GUI. CLI as a keyword also clearly leaves it up to the user to
read the programs description/web to figure out if the app in question
will run under their particular OS, whereas DOS and CMD can as said be
misunderstood to indicate platform.

And alternative could be to use both with a slash, DOS/CMD or CMD/DOS,
but then you risk a similar kind of misunderstanding, someone will
think it means the app is made to run on both platforms (and blame you
if it doesn't <g>)

I understand your "CLI concern" though, but having thought about it
I'd have to say, those that do not yet know what it stands for will
have to learn what it means and get used to it. One way to look at it
is to say that CLI as a keyword is there first and foremost for anyone
searching for a CLI app - AND for those wanting to avoid CLI apps at
all costs. Both of those groups will have strong incentives to stay
informed about commonly used abbreviations, if they don't already
know. Those in the latter group, the avoiders, that does not yet
know, will be the fastest learners - I assure you ;). The third group,
the indifferent ones, will either know what it means or doesn't care.

And option could be, as more such abbreviation gets added, like n.r
and CLI (or what ever you choose), to make a "commonly used
abbreviations" page, with a reasonably visible link on each page - for
anyone in need to look up.

Might need it my self one day when reading Susan's pages, at least
judging by her Usenet messages, fx shorthand abbreviations such as ATM
and ISTM makes _me_ stop and think. :) They are usually obvious from
the context, once you stop and think. I'm sure they are common, and
that I will get used to them, and even use them my self. But the thing
is - here it this group, where real people hide behind the strangest
names/handles - I must stop an think anyway, is she talking to a user
named "ATM" or "ISTM" now? Not to worry Susan, I just read your
statement about you having to "stop and think hard to remember what
CLI stands for" as an invitation. ;) I'm not asking you to stop using
ATM or ISTM or similar, but simply that you add CLI to the list :)

PS: I prefer CLI my self, which I guess i obvious, but when arguing
for CLI here - I'm not arguing from personal preferences only, but
like to think "common sense". Me, I will understand what ever you use
anyway, CLI; DOS, CMD, X, Y, whatever - even ATM or ISTM ;)

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
Bjorn Simonsen said:
IMO: CLI for Command Line Interface is more correct in that it covers
both DOS (command.com) and CMD (cmd.exe). Thus a more general, less
precise term. If a page indicates this app is CLI, then it is saying
nothing about which OS version it will run under. Whereas if the page
says DOS or CMD, different people will assume different things. CLI is
also more future oriented, it will stay current no matter what new
command processor people use, the interface is what matters, as in CLI
not GUI.
Click to expand...
[...]

Ah, thanks Bjorn, this is a very good description.
CLI as a keyword also clearly leaves it up to the user to
read the programs description/web to figure out if the app in question
will run under their particular OS, whereas DOS and CMD can as said be
misunderstood to indicate platform.
Click to expand...
[...]

A good point.
And option could be, as more such abbreviation gets added, like n.r
and CLI (or what ever you choose), to make a "commonly used
abbreviations" page, with a reasonably visible link on each page - for
anyone in need to look up.
Click to expand...

The first times I viewed the page, I initially didn't even realize one
of the abbreviations: "n.i." I second that suggestion. To put in an
abbreviations glossary.

And yes, on this other point: I am now convinced that "CLI" would serve
much better than "DOS."
Might need it my self one day when reading Susan's pages, at least
judging by her Usenet messages, fx shorthand abbreviations such as ATM
and ISTM makes _me_ stop and think. :) They are usually obvious from
the context, once you stop and think. I'm sure they are common, and
that I will get used to them, and even use them my self.
Click to expand...
[...]

The one that stumped me for the longest time, when I first started reading
netnews, it was "AFAIK." I don't know why I didn't look it up. This was
back around 96-97, when there weren't quite so many gazillions of acronym
glossaries around -- but I'm sure there were some. Any case, I just left it
as a riddle for myself, trying to make sense of it whenever I saw it. Took
me about a year... (AFAIR)

[...]
PS: I prefer CLI my self, which I guess i obvious, but when arguing
for CLI here - I'm not arguing from personal preferences only, but
like to think "common sense".
Click to expand...

Or good logic. You've defintiely sold me.
Me, I will understand what ever you use anyway, CLI; DOS, CMD, X, Y,
Click to expand...

Where X represents "help!1 it's broken it flashed by in a black box and
then went away."
whatever - even ATM or ISTM ;)
Click to expand...

Okee, we could call em CLIISTM progams.
 
omega said:
Or good logic. You've defintiely sold me.
Click to expand...

and the two of you have sold me :) - so CLI it shall be, with an
explanation at the top of the page.

Susan
 
Back
Top