Ack!!! Please do not perpetuate the misconception that there is any DOS in
NT. It is a 32-bit system console. Even in Windows 9X, it is a 32-bit
console. They don’t need cmd.exe to do remote things on your machine
(though that may be THEIR way). If they can launch cmd.exe as a remote
process, they can probably launch whatever they want. On another subject,
I have a hard time using a machine without 4NT by JPSoft (I have been using
some flavor for about 15 years). cmd.exe sucks rocks (don’t even mention
command.com I will barf).
-Justin
At 08:35 AM 10/18/2002, you wrote:
It’s not nonsense, that’s my daily reality.
Peter, I can’t avoid calling cmd.exe a “dos box”, because that’s what it is.
The day MS put in as much functionality in it as I have in an Unix XTERM
plus your typical Bourne or even C shell, maybe I’ll call it something else.
And yes, there are security issues with leaving cmd.exe in a system, for
example, admins running scripts in my machine behind my back. So, in some of
my machines I just delete it, or rename it to xterm.exe or something in that
direction: I may be paranoid, but I do NOT like the idea of people running
programs in my machine from remote sites.Second, I find it a terrible idea to depend on any particular compiler and
linker to have to build anything. That’s why we have language standards, no
? For portability ? So that I the consumer have some choice, for a change ?Third, the issue of running this or that compiler or this or that linker
have nothing to do with the issue of building from an integrated environment
as opposed to building from the command line. Last that I checked, and I may
be wrong here because it’s been a while and I don’t keep tabs on that kind
of thing, the MSVC IDE allowed us to specify which compiler to use; I
remember when Intel came up with its Pentium III SIMD extensions they first
supported them through intrinsincs in the Intel C compiler, which was
integratable into the MSVC shell without any other change to the build
environment.Fourth, DriverWorks does use the DDK compiler and linker, dynamically, it’s
smart enough to know what’s going on. You don’t even need to configure the
DDK compiler as your choice compiler in the MSVC shell.So, the point is moot, and the accusation does not hold. Our software DOES
NOT ask anyone to use the “wrong” compiler - even though I strongly object
to that kind of terminology. If an ANSI standard C++ compiler can’t build a
driver, that’s not because that compiler is the “wrong” compiler, the
shortcoming is elsewhere.Alberto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Viscarola [mailto:xxxxx@osr.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:01 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: Why not use BUILD [was Re: Errors while building
samples of DriverStudio in Windows XP]That’s all nonsense, Alberto, you should know better.
(“Remove my DOS box for security?” Knock knock… BUILD doesn’t run under
DOS or in any sort of DOS box. In runs at the Windows command prompt. It’s
NOT DOS. And it’s NOT removable in any supported way.?It is absolutely, positively, professionally irresponsible to RECOMMEND that
anybody build a driver for Windows XP or .NET 2003 using anything other than
the compiler and linker shipped in the DDK.Like Visual Studio (I can’t imagine why, but lets say you do): Great. Just
use an external build procedure and thereby get the correct tools.I’ve said this before: The DDK ships the correct compiler and linker for
building drivers. It was not easy for the DDK team to get these included in
the DDK at no extra cost. There’s a REASON that they are there. I see
build problems *all the time* due to using the wrong tools.If YOU want to use different tools to build Windows drivers, by all means,
have a good time. You are experienced enough, and clever enough, and
probably have enough time and resources to make it work. This is a personal
decision.Heck, I’ve seen people write drivers for Windows NT using Borland C++…
But PLEASE… Don’t encourage others to use THE WRONG compiler and linker.
It doesn’t make sense. “Hey, I recommend you use a compiler and linker
different from the one that Microsoft recommend, even though I have no way
of knowing the difference”.That’s just not providing good advice to people, and it is most certainly
NOT doing the driver community a service.Peter
OSR“Moreira, Alberto” wrote in message
>news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > It’s command line oriented, it won’t run if I rename or remove my dos box
> > for security reasons. It requires maintaining a separate sources file and
> > possibly dir files. It does not adapt itself to dynamic changes to the
> > project or the solution. It makes it hard to do things piecewise, for
> > example, compile files in onesies and twosies without building. Its output
> > is not integrated with the rest of the IDE. It requires me to jump from
> > window to window, or to add custom steps to my project.
> >
> > Sorry, that’s the way it used to be when I was a kid back in the sixties,
>eh
> > ? But this is the twentieth first century now, time to move on.
> >
> >
> > Alberto.
> >
>
>
>
>
>—
>You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
>
>
>The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
>contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
>addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
>it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately
>and then destroy it.
>
>
>
>—
>You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: zeppelin@io.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%