|
Phoenixan posted:doesn't solitaire have a subscription for it now it has ads unless you pay microsoft
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Wonder how many yearly subscriptions they're selling
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Wonder how many yearly subscriptions they're selling one per year 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
i'm just making sure i'm not crazy: it shouldn't be difficult to modify a group policy such that someone's machine is capable of running commands longer than 250ish characters, right? i'm asking this client to change their policy and they're acting like it's some insane unprecedented ask and i'm kind of blown away that they're making such a big deal about this
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
you mean long paths? because commands are limited to 8k characters but yeah, long paths is a single gpo. maybe they just don't want to validate against it
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
or their admins are morons and don't know how to use group policy
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:you mean long paths? because commands are limited to 8k characters command line input i think is still limited to 256 chars for them. it's not an issue of them validating against it they're straight up saying it's impossible
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
just enable long path support in your application's manifest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:or their admins are morons and don't know how to use group policy literally the convo we had today after finally getting them on the phone after two months of trying to get them to fix their poo poo them: well we modified the policy on $techlead's machine and he says it still isn't working (i know that $techlead is a loving moron and has made no attempt at getting anything to work on his machine) me: well we're looking at $intern's screen. did you modify the policy for him? *silence* me: $techlead can you share your screen and try to run the deployment script? techlead: no let's try to get it working on $intern's machine helpdesk: what you're asking for is unnatural behavior that doesn't come out of the box with windows. this is a microsoft setting and changing the registry means we're changing the behavior of the system. me: yes that's what the registry is for i don't understand the problem helpdesk: the article you gave us is just some guy on a forum saying things that isn't verified by microsoft. i'm looking at a microsoft article that says input is limited to 256 chars by default. that's the behavior they've defined. you'll need to talk to microsoft to have this fixed me: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:just enable long path support in your application's manifest. application itself is fine. the issue is the .bat script to get everything deployed and up and running is longer than 256 chars and they're refusing to enable longpath in the registry
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
why are the paths so long?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
This poo poo is programming_for_IT_folks.txt, but commiserations
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:why are the paths so long? it's only slightly over 260 characters. if they condense some of the folders down to abbreviations it works fine. the issue is that they're just going to run into this problem again when either additional arguments are added to the launcher or someone new comes on and uses a different folder structure or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:application itself is fine. the issue is the .bat script to get everything deployed and up and running is longer than 256 chars and they're refusing to enable longpath in the registry why are they attempting to change the registry instead of enabling the GPO? gently caress, they can just set a local policy if they're afeard of taking down their network or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
why is it when given the opportunity windows admins will choose not only the wrong way to do something but also the more difficult way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
are you saying that the bat file's path is >260 characters? or are you saying that the bat file path plus arguments is >260 characters? if the latter, write launcher2.bat with the correct arguments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:... instead of enabling the GPO? gently caress, they can just set a local policy if they're afeard of taking down their network or something Fiedler posted:... write launcher2.bat with the correct arguments. i'm not a windows guy i have no idea what this stuff means
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:i'm not a windows guy i have no idea what this stuff means if the latter, write [launcher2.sh] with the correct arguments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:why is it when given the opportunity windows admins will choose not only the wrong way to do something but also the more difficult way? my fiefdom!!! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
actually cmd.exe doesn't support long paths even if you do enable the GPO, so they'd have to launch the script in powershell, but if they launch the script in powershell it should work whether or not that GPO is set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:are you saying that the [bash script] file's path is >260 characters? or are you saying that the [bash script] file path plus arguments is >260 characters? i think the issue is the script touches files whose paths are longer than 260 characters, at which point the script will definitely fail if run in the cmd.exe shell
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:are you saying that the [bash script] file's path is >260 characters? or are you saying that the [bash script] file path plus arguments is >260 characters? the file path is definitely less than 260 characters. it's that plus the arguments inside it are greater than 260 i have no clue what you mean by that launcher2 stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:the file path is definitely less than 260 characters. it's that plus the arguments inside it are greater than 260 as a non-janitor, it sounds like you can have one script call another script that contains only the modifiers to get around the character limit
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:the file path is definitely less than 260 characters. it's that plus the arguments inside it are greater than 260 i can't remember if shortcuts are a workaround for path length but symbolic links/folder junctions probably still work. Shaggar posted:why are the paths so long?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
alright the intern ran the scripts both with powershell and also after enabling 'enable win32 long paths' and is still getting the same error so i have no idea what the gently caress is wrong with their computers no other customers have had this issue
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
i don't care anymore they can use bullshit folder names or figure it out on their own. i've never had to cj for a customer before this is stupid af
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:i don't care anymore they can use bullshit folder names or figure it out on their own. i've never had to cj for a customer before this is stupid af 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
that was always the correct answer
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
What the gently caress kind of garbage software are you writing and deploying if your deployment solution is “run this batch file”?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
ugh it's not our deployer it's a series of jobs that kick off other ingestion/harmonization jobs written in java that then communicate with our product we use gradle for actual deployments/configuration which is working fine for them
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
literally all these things are are just calling these little lovely java classes that we wrote to interface with their other databases along with passing in things like 'here's the config file' that's it and for some reason their bullshit laptops just can't handle it
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
i know it should be fine because the sales engineer who wrote the poc and handed this stuff off to me develops on a pc and everything ran fine on his machine. i have no idea what's wrong with their garbage IT department that their developers can't handle this
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
they loving had the gall to tell me that i should go to my other customers and ask their IT departments how they handled their group policies to overcome this insurmountable obstacle. they had the lack of shame to literally tell me to ask another one of my customer's IT to do their jobs for them. and this lead tech just nodded along like 'yeah this makes sense and is a reasonable ask' god damnit gently caress this
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
should have upgraded to grundle
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:i know it should be fine because the sales engineer who wrote the poc and handed this stuff off to me develops on a pc and everything ran fine on his machine. i have no idea what's wrong with their garbage IT department that their developers can't handle this your sales guy wrote a lovely batch script and you're blaming the customer. fix your script.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Fiedler posted:your sales guy wrote a lovely batch script and you're blaming the customer. fix your script. yeah i'm going to have to but i shouldn't have to damnit 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:sales engineer  quote:who wrote the poc and handed this stuff off to me develops on a pc and everything ran fine on his machine lmao Fiedler posted:your sales guy wrote a lovely batch script and you're blaming the customer. fix your script. 30 TO 50 FERAL HOG fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Sep 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
smellmycheese posted:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/06/microsoft-surface-go-review-tablet-thats-better-for-work-than-play quote:But a lack of apps holds it back compared to the best-in-class iPad. windows is the platform with less appealing app library
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2018 00:08
|
|
