Leave it to MS to fuck up cron
BDB
would be simple under Linux, too bad I was stuck with Win2k. First
hitch, Task Scheduler has no option for every hour. Every day is the
highest frequency it supports. WTF they would leave out every hour
and every minute is beyond me. After some googling around I find that
if I add the task, then go back in and edit it, then click on Advanced
I can get the option to run it every hour. (Advanced? Are windows
users so stupid they can't handle the concept of hours and minutes?)
The Advanced screen is confusing as hell, and I'd not sure I even got
it right, but it doesn't matter because then I discovered that my bat
script won't run from cron. It says "failed to run". You'd think
Task Scheduler would have a Show Error Log function or something, but
no, like most things in winders, if it doesn't work the first time you
are SOL.
Baruch
When I ran into this problem, it turned out to be that the program needed a
password authorization to run - my own password. I never could figure out
why that was so - it was pretty stupid, since I'm the one who set it up in
the first place... I don't know if Microsoft thought this was a security
measure or what...
BDB
> When I ran into this problem, it turned out to be that the program needed a
> password authorization to run - my own password. I never could figure out
> why that was so - it was pretty stupid, since I'm the one who set it up in
> the first place... I don't know if Microsoft thought this was a security
> measure or what...
Yep, that was it. Thanks! Now back to ranting...why did I have to
enter my own password? Probably some need of their twisted security
design. I could swear MS goes out of their way to design things so
the user can never quite understand how it's working. No doubt they
feel it helps them control the market or something.
Baruch
There is a school in my city, that has a really huge, massive gate. It's
quite a work of art - towering perhaps 20-25 feet high, wrought iron,
enormous bars and fancy decorations. I guess they'd call it Baroque style,
though I couldn't say why I think that. Anyway, NO ONE is going to get
through that gate, no matter how hard they try. The thing is, there's no
fence. The gate doesn't actually *do* anything - apparently, it's for
show, because there's nothing - not so much as a chalk line - around it, to
keep anyone out.
Sometimes I think Microsoft does things like that. They have no fence, but
sometimes they make a really obvious gate.
Seriously, I wonder whether Microsoft's problem is that there are too many
teams working on their stuff, and they each have different philosophies and
ideas. It does seem that way, sometimes. Why would you need to turn off
your computer by clicking on the "Start" button, for example? It's
counter-intuitive. It's a handy place to put the function - start/stop
together, like the way light switches are. But the label is inappropriate,
in that case.
Even the basic user interface between their own programs varies
inconsistently. What works in Word may have unfortunate results in, say,
Excel.
And it gets *much* worse when you get into the non-mainstream stuff like
task manager, where few are going to even use it. Once you stray from the
beaten path, you're in really strange territory. They add and remove
programs and features randomly. I used to use msconfig.exe, a program that
made it simpler to configure how various MS components worked. This keeps
changing, and it's not always an improvement. It even disappeared from one
version, though I think it's back in XP (I don't remember - isn't that
great?).
Hamilcar Barca
01:41:25 +0000), BDB wrote:
> Yep, that was it. Thanks! Now back to ranting...why did I have to
> enter my own password?
It's because the task will run if the machine is running, even if you're
not logged in. However, it either has to run as the user who's logged in
or you have to authorize it will a password. Or something like that; I
read about it somewhere, maybe in _Windows 2000 Expert Companion_.
> Probably some need of their twisted security design.
Exactly.
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrncit4ar....@news.easynews.com> (Fri, 27 Aug 2004
> 01:41:25 +0000), BDB wrote:
>
>> Yep, that was it. Thanks! Now back to ranting...why did I have to
>> enter my own password?
>
> It's because the task will run if the machine is running, even if you're
> not logged in. However, it either has to run as the user who's logged in
Big deal, a Barrel.
Cron has this very same "problem". Yet it simply chooses to run YOUR
cron job under YOUR user id.
The painfully obvious option I think...
> or you have to authorize it will a password. Or something like that; I
> read about it somewhere, maybe in _Windows 2000 Expert Companion_.
>
>> Probably some need of their twisted security design.
>
> Exactly.
--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.
srm
> In article <slrncit4ar....@news.easynews.com> (Fri, 27 Aug 2004
> 01:41:25 +0000), BDB wrote:
>
>
>>Yep, that was it. Thanks! Now back to ranting...why did I have to
>>enter my own password?
>
>
> It's because the task will run if the machine is running, even if you're
> not logged in. However, it either has to run as the user who's logged in
> or you have to authorize it will a password. Or something like that; I
> read about it somewhere, maybe in _Windows 2000 Expert Companion_.
Yeah, but this here Linux machine will run a user's cron jobs without
that user being logged in. Why? Because files in Linux have proper
ownership & permission settings. Just another example of Windows being
half-arsed. That's what happens when you ask a toy OS to do a man's job.
@+
srm
Craig Kelley
> Cron has this very same "problem". Yet it simply chooses to run YOUR
> cron job under YOUR user id.
>
> The painfully obvious option I think...
<engineer style="microsoft">
B..b.bb.bbut HOW, exactly.. is something supposed to run as a normal user
if the user isn't logged in. Shouldn't the user just login as
Administrator all the time to avoid this problem?
And, sheesh, I mean ... CRON? That is soooo like 1970s and stuff. Nobody
does batch processing anymore. Just put it in a TODO list for Outlook and
have it remind you to do it by mouse every hour. DUH! I have like 300
"reminders" on my desktop even as I write this.
CRON.. heh, that's WAY too hard to use.
</engineer>
--
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
namonai at that google email system
Tom Shelton
Might I point out two things....
1. Yes you can do hours and minuts. On the last screen, check the
little box that says "Open advanced properties for this task when I
finish". Hit finish - walla. I agree that this part is a little overly
complicated in that it is not really obvious...
2. You enter the password for a couple of reasons... 1. so that you
can set it up to run as another user. 2. It is possible to schedule the
task to run on another machine. So, it needs the login information to
make that happen.
--
Tom Shelton
honda...@whoever.com
> Hamilcar Barca wrote:
> Yeah, but this here Linux machine will run a user's cron jobs without
> that user being logged in. Why? Because files in Linux have proper
> ownership & permission settings. Just another example of Windows being
> half-arsed. That's what happens when you ask a toy OS to do a man's job.
Windows can't run a cronjob for a user that's not logged in? HA HA !
Shows people that multiuser is just an afterthought/hack in Windows.
Any morons out that that don't agree?
Go ahead, talk, speak! Make my day! Make most people's day!
Tom Shelton
> srm <us...@example.net> wrote in message news:<8qm302-...@anon.com>...
>> Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but this here Linux machine will run a user's cron jobs without
>> that user being logged in. Why? Because files in Linux have proper
>> ownership & permission settings. Just another example of Windows being
>> half-arsed. That's what happens when you ask a toy OS to do a man's job.
>
> Windows can't run a cronjob for a user that's not logged in? HA HA !
>
No user has to be logged in. You set the user name and password (and
this only applies to NT based systems) so that the task will run under
the appropriate user. Further, Task Scheduler jobs do not necissarily
run on the machine on which they were scheduled. You are able to
schedule tasks remotely.
--
Tom Shelton
Craig Kelley
Wow, almost like rsh from the 1970's; only the two functions are properly
separated in UNIX.
It's a _feature_ that each and every application has to tack-on support to
"run on a remote machine"?
Tom Shelton
You apparently know nothing about Windows Task Scheduler. Yes, it works
differently then Unix. So what? From my perspective, having written
multiple interfaces into the windows task scheduler, it is a feature
since I don't have to do anything extra in my code except set the
computer name where the task will run.
--
Tom Shelton
Roy Culley
Tom Shelton <t...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> writes:
>
> Might I point out two things....
>
> 1. Yes you can do hours and minuts. On the last screen, check the
> little box that says "Open advanced properties for this task when I
> finish". Hit finish - walla. I agree that this part is a little
> overly complicated in that it is not really obvious...
>
> 2. You enter the password for a couple of reasons... 1. so that
> you can set it up to run as another user. 2. It is possible to
> schedule the task to run on another machine. So, it needs the login
> information to make that happen.
Hmm, how does it store the password? Is the username and password
encrypted when when accessing a remote host?
honda...@whoever.com
> > Windows can't run a cronjob for a user that's not logged in? HA HA !
> >
>
> No user has to be logged in. You set the user name and password (and
> this only applies to NT based systems) so that the task will run under
> the appropriate user.
"set the password"? How does that work? I'd understand that when you
configure/program the "cronjob" you might need to logged in. But once
programmed, the user should be able to log out, and the password
should not have to be stored or temporarily held in any place in order
to make the scheduled cronjob happen, because that'd be weak.
In Unix the cronjob engine runs as root, and has the right to spawn
processes under normal user privileges. That 'jump' to a normal user
does not require a password. Needless to say, the 'root' level is
heavily protected. 'root' exploits are the main ways to attack a Unix
system, but that risk pails in comparison to the security holes found
in Windows.
> Further, Task Scheduler jobs do not necissarily
> run on the machine on which they were scheduled. You are able to
> schedule tasks remotely.
You're not going find a single network or scheduling or multiuser
related feature that Unix does not better than Windows. This is one
of them.
Hamilcar Barca
2004 14:31:34 -0700), hondacivic wrote:
> Windows can't run a cronjob for a user that's not logged in? HA HA !
I never used its Task Scheduler, but IIRC it can. However (also IIRC),
jobs cannot be run with the user's privilege if the user is not logged in,
except if the user provides the password in advance.
> Shows people that multiuser is just an afterthought/hack in Windows.
Windows is not a multiuser operating system.
--
"SCO refuses to substantiate its accusations and detail exactly what code
in Linux it claims rights to, and how such matches up to the code in the
UNIX software to which SCO claims to possess copyrights."
-- IBM'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Just to be clear, when you say "NT based systems" you mean NT/XP/W2K
right? anything but the dos shells?
If so, that's the only stuff they sell now, right? I mean, it's not like
you can go to Best buy and get a new laptop with W98SE on it or
something...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBMDoud90bcYOAWPYRAnp7AKDVCDTtL65I3s8spQdxh4Lbr9XmZwCfartC
0YqTD3z9GtxfL/v43EBD9qw=
=Xh2x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
'Windows' really does make a fine swear word, representing all that's
taboo and awful - just like 'shit', 'fuck', etc."
-- Mark Hughes, sdm
Alecky-Nicosai
> In article <33372a95.0408...@posting.google.com> (Fri, 27 Aug
> 2004 14:31:34 -0700), hondacivic wrote:
>
>> Windows can't run a cronjob for a user that's not logged in? HA HA !
>
> I never used its Task Scheduler, but IIRC it can. However (also IIRC),
> jobs cannot be run with the user's privilege if the user is not logged in,
> except if the user provides the password in advance.
>
>> Shows people that multiuser is just an afterthought/hack in Windows.
>
> Windows is not a multiuser operating system.
>
That is so true...
Craig Kelley
Well rsh (ssh since 1995) allows you to run *any* command on a remote
machine, without any application support. Hell, cron could fire off a job
that ran on some machine that in turn fired off a command to run on a
third, and so on. None of that functionality had to be built into cron.
There's no reason to trust a userland application with your password so
that it can do things for you when you're not logged in. Trust is
separated from authentication, which is separated from application. This
is basic security 101.
In Windows, it's all just cobbled together depending on application
developers; it seems. You are correct, I know nothing about Windows Task
Scheduler, I'm just astounded that it actually works that way.
Tom Shelton
To be honest - I've never looked into that. I assume it is the same way
that windows handles mapped network shares. You can set a user name and
password that windows will use to access those as well.... How and where
that information is stored - I don't really know :)
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:39:10 GMT,
> Tom Shelton <t...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote:
>> In article <33372a95.0408...@posting.google.com>, honda...@whoever.com wrote:
>>> srm <us...@example.net> wrote in message news:<8qm302-...@anon.com>...
>>>> Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, but this here Linux machine will run a user's cron jobs
>>>> without that user being logged in. Why? Because files in Linux have
>>>> proper ownership & permission settings. Just another example of
>>>> Windows being half-arsed. That's what happens when you ask a toy OS
>>>> to do a man's job.
>>>
>>> Windows can't run a cronjob for a user that's not logged in? HA HA !
>>>
>>
>> No user has to be logged in. You set the user name and password (and
>> this only applies to NT based systems) so that the task will run under
>> the appropriate user. Further, Task Scheduler jobs do not necissarily
>> run on the machine on which they were scheduled. You are able to
>> schedule tasks remotely.
>>
>
>
>
> Just to be clear, when you say "NT based systems" you mean NT/XP/W2K
> right? anything but the dos shells?
Yes... NT/2K/XP/2K3...
> If so, that's the only stuff they sell now, right? I mean, it's not like
> you can go to Best buy and get a new laptop with W98SE on it or
> something...
I believe you can still purchase ME (spit... hiss...). Even so, there are
many still running 9x systems - so I think the distinction is important.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFBMDoud90bcYOAWPYRAnp7AKDVCDTtL65I3s8spQdxh4Lbr9XmZwCfartC
> 0YqTD3z9GtxfL/v43EBD9qw=
> =Xh2x
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Tom Shelton
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Just want to make sure we don't start the Windows version dodge. Not
that I think that you would neccesarily do it, but it's happened with
many of the wintrolls again and again.
So to clarify, you have to add your password to a cronjob to make it
run, if you aren't logged in? How primitve.
Using a full featured cron, (vixie cron is a place to start, although
there are others with far more features. ) I can run any command via
cron, that I can run via the shell, including running commands on other
machines, with no need for passwords in the cronjob at all.
I don't need to write the application to allow for it, it's part of the
package, it "just works"
I am sure glad I am not limited to the MS-Windows "cron", I don't think
I'd like having to deal with it's limitations, nor leaving my passwords
around. Thank heavens for cron (a real one) and ssh...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBMZD1d90bcYOAWPYRAk0AAJ9ljlUMCOlJmZTRen5FhlA/7zx48wCdEoIQ
f0r3B9WXj/8qg9ZIg+Ou790=
=EKfe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin
GreyCloud
nob...@nowhere.nonet wrote:
> Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> spewed this unto the Network:
>
>>Just to be clear, when you say "NT based systems" you mean NT/XP/W2K
>>right? anything but the dos shells?
>
>
>>If so, that's the only stuff they sell now, right? I mean, it's not like
>>you can go to Best buy and get a new laptop with W98SE on it or
>>something...
>
>
> You can buy an old laptop with Win98SE on eBay. More Windows users
> are using old computers running one of the DOS shells than are using
> new computers running the NT kernel.
>
That's why I haven't junked the HP that I've got. The machine is in
perfect working order still.
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.