NTDOCAdministrator
(KiX Master)
2005-08-19 01:44 AM
Built-in support for XNET

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

LonkeroAdministrator
(KiX Master Guru)
2005-08-19 01:55 AM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

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.

Chris S.
(MM club member)
2005-08-19 04:52 AM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

fnWMIService() has a method for deleting a service and will work on local or remote computers.

LonkeroAdministrator
(KiX Master Guru)
2005-08-19 04:58 AM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

hmm... indeed, it is rather fullfilling UDF.

NTDOCAdministrator
(KiX Master)
2005-08-19 06:06 AM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

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.

Les
(KiX Master)
2005-08-19 06:36 AM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

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.

NTDOCAdministrator
(KiX Master)
2005-08-19 08:05 AM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

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.

iffy
(Starting to like KiXtart)
2005-10-02 04:44 PM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

I admit not to have done any research so perhaps a silly question but what can XNET do that the default SC command cannot?

Les
(KiX Master)
2005-10-02 04:52 PM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

iffy,
Your question would be a better fit in General discussions. The suggestions forum is for posting suggestions and debating their pros and cons.

iffy
(Starting to like KiXtart)
2005-10-02 04:54 PM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

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.

Les
(KiX Master)
2005-10-02 05:06 PM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

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.

iffy
(Starting to like KiXtart)
2005-10-02 05:17 PM
Re: Built-in support for XNET

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.