Built-in support for XNET - KiXtart.org - official site

You are not logged in. [Log In] KiXtart.org website » Forums » KiXtart » Suggestions » Built-in support for XNET

Page 1 of 1

1

Topic Options

#145951 - 2005-08-19 01:44 AM Built-in support for XNET
NTDOC NTDOC Administrator Registered: 2000-07-28 Posts: 11624 Loc: CA	There are UDFs to deal with most service operations but did not see one to remove a service. I know that a couple of scripts have recently been written to attempt to do this, but would be nice to have native support for it like XNET has, especially now that that 4.50 release doesn't even ship with XNET
Top

#145952 - 2005-08-19 01:55 AM Re: Built-in support for XNET
Lonkero Lonkero KiX Master Guru Registered: 2001-06-05 Posts: 22346 Loc: OK	I would like to take this opportunity and widen the suggestion. I know there is skix suggestion too but this is actually what that suggestion is all about. make kixtart able to work with services and act as one. _________________________ ! download KiXnet
Top

#145953 - 2005-08-19 04:52 AM Re: Built-in support for XNET
Chris S. Chris S. MM club member Registered: 2002-03-18 Posts: 2368 Loc: Earth	fnWMIService() has a method for deleting a service and will work on local or remote computers.
Top

#145954 - 2005-08-19 04:58 AM Re: Built-in support for XNET
Lonkero Lonkero KiX Master Guru Registered: 2001-06-05 Posts: 22346 Loc: OK	hmm... indeed, it is rather fullfilling UDF. _________________________ ! download KiXnet
Top

#145955 - 2005-08-19 06:06 AM Re: Built-in support for XNET
NTDOC NTDOC Administrator Registered: 2000-07-28 Posts: 11624 Loc: CA	Thanks Chris, but if Ruud could make it internal to KiX and still work on NT4 systems without WMI that would be cool. I use your UDF for doing service work in general but didn't notice it did removals as well.
Top

#145956 - 2005-08-19 06:36 AM Re: Built-in support for XNET
Les Les KiX Master Registered: 2001-06-11 Posts: 12734 Loc: fortfrances.on.ca	XNET was removed because it hasn't changed and is still available from prior distributables. It is 60KB as a stand-alone and IMHO should not bloat KiX by making it internal. Since KiX is primarily a logon script processor and since XNET requires admin rights and most users don't have admin rights, it is a bad idea to add the baggage to all those users that cannot even use it. Administrators running admin scripts would have no problem to to use it as an external utility. _________________________ Give a man a fish and he will be back for more. Slap him with a fish and he will go away forever.
Top

#145957 - 2005-08-19 08:05 AM Re: Built-in support for XNET
NTDOC NTDOC Administrator Registered: 2000-07-28 Posts: 11624 Loc: CA	True, but I think it goes back to the request that maybe we have different version of KiX. One that is smaller for LOGON and one that for all intensive purposes does not have a limit on size as it will never be used as a logon processor but as an Admin scripting tool only. Some want one as a service as well and to probably have or do like script logic does with Admin Rights on the desktop.
Top

#145958 - 2005-10-02 04:44 PM Re: Built-in support for XNET
iffy iffy Starting to like KiXtart Registered: 2005-05-29 Posts: 149 Loc: The Netherlands	I admit not to have done any research so perhaps a silly question but what can XNET do that the default SC command cannot?
Top

#145959 - 2005-10-02 04:52 PM Re: Built-in support for XNET
Les Les KiX Master Registered: 2001-06-11 Posts: 12734 Loc: fortfrances.on.ca	iffy, Your question would be a better fit in General discussions. The suggestions forum is for posting suggestions and debating their pros and cons. _________________________ Give a man a fish and he will be back for more. Slap him with a fish and he will go away forever.
Top

#145960 - 2005-10-02 04:54 PM Re: Built-in support for XNET
iffy iffy Starting to like KiXtart Registered: 2005-05-29 Posts: 149 Loc: The Netherlands	I considered it relevant because if SC can do all that XNET can do why bother debating the pros and cons of built-in support? Edit: A quick look shows that SC can do all that XNET can do except reboot/shutdown but that is like SC also built in since Windows 2000? So, except for NT4 which is retired (unfortionately I got a Citrix farm on NT4 still...) it doesn't not add much to built this into kix. Edited by iffy (2005-10-02 05:02 PM)
Top

#145961 - 2005-10-02 05:06 PM Re: Built-in support for XNET
Les Les KiX Master Registered: 2001-06-11 Posts: 12734 Loc: fortfrances.on.ca	So you're expressing an opinion in the form of a question? Should we surmise that your opinion is to not include XNET as a built-in because SC is not built-in? Both XNET and SC are external and available separately so I see no connection between SC and the suggestion for a built-in XNET. The intent of the beta and suggestions forums is to borrow Ruud's ear (eyes) and to that end, I prefer to keep threads short and precice. Ruud may not have the time to trawl through dozens of vaguely related content and miss something near the end of the thread. _________________________ Give a man a fish and he will be back for more. Slap him with a fish and he will go away forever.
Top

#145962 - 2005-10-02 05:17 PM Re: Built-in support for XNET
iffy iffy Starting to like KiXtart Registered: 2005-05-29 Posts: 149 Loc: The Netherlands	You got it almost right, my opinion (and suggestion since that it what a suggestions forum is about I thought?) is not to include it in kixtart SINCE it is included in the standard OS these days. When XNET was invented SC didn't exist and it was very useful but not anymore. So let XNET be and let Ruud focus on some else more relevant. Edited by iffy (2005-10-02 05:18 PM)
Top

Page 1 of 1

1

Previous Topic

Previous Topic View All Topics

View All Topics

Index Next Topic

Next Topic

Moderator: Lonkero, ShaneEP, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, Allen, Ruud van Velsen, Mart

Hop to:

Shout Box

Who's Online

1 registered (Allen) and 496 anonymous users online.

Newest Members

Raoul, Timothy, Jojo67, MaikSimon, kvn317
17875 Registered Users

Generated in 0.1 seconds in which 0.064 seconds were spent on a total of 12 queries. Zlib compression enabled.

click tracking