|
Well you can try rd /s \\?\c:\path
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, is it possible to check the software installation date in windows xp?
|
|
|
|
|
If you mean the installation date of the OS, you can use WMI. Installdate is a property of the Win32_OperatingSystem class.
Wout Louwers
|
|
|
|
|
No, I do not want to know the OS installation date. What I want is the application installation date such as Office, winzip...
|
|
|
|
|
Installdate is also a property of Win32_Product. So you could get your info there.
Wout Louwers
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Wout,
Thank you for your reply. I will try to test it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks in Advance
i am using Outlook 2010 on a network windows based Environment , before we had Exchange Server so we were able to Share our Calendar but now we are without Exchange Server and are not able to Share Calendar any more is there any way to do this
Best Regards,
SOFTDEV
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it
|
|
|
|
|
You can share your pst files, but the usability sucks IMAO (Only one user at a time).
Then there are some <edit> open source competitors, for example scalix such as open Xchange </edit>, which I haven't tested.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice , Thanks alot
Best Regards,
SOFTDEV
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Can someone help me understand how to setup multiple websites with 443 SSL on windows server 2003?
Example:
Say my domain registra has these 2 domains...
www.site1.com 24.111.111.24
www.site2.com 24.111.111.24
My Linksys router has this setup...
Static IP = 24.111.111.24
DMZ = 192.168.1.150
Forwarding port: 443 to 192.168.1.150
Forwarding port: 80 to 192.168.1.150
My Web Server (IP Address 192.168.1.150) has these websites setup...
host header, tcp port , ip address , SSL
www.site1.com 80 192.168.1.160 443
www.site2.com 80 192.168.1.161 443
Now, how can I get the outside world, when they type in www.site1.com, to go to the web server 192.168.1.160? Have I got this example wrong?
Thank You very much for any help you can provide!
zxcvbnm
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that you won't be able to provide site2 over 192.168.1.160:443. It's an intentional limitation in IIS.
The SSL negotiation provides to the client the certificate that identifies www.site1.com. That negotiation happens before the HTTP session starts. Because of that SSL negotiation, the browser will never ask for a particular virtual hosted site, because the site has already identified itself.
You must run SSL-enabled web sites on different IP:port combinations. For instance, you could run site2 on 192.168.1.160:8443, and configure that port to be forwarded on your router. However, that port would need to be entered in the browser to pull up the page like so: "https://www.site2.com:8443/" If the user entered https://www.site2.com/, they would get an invalid certificate error, because they are connecting to 192.168.1.160:443 -- or site1.com.
This may not be as big of an issue if everyone comes into http://www.site1.com and http://www.site2.com. Then, when pages on site1.com or site2.com send people to the encrypted pages, you can direct them appropriately to https://www.site1.com or https://www.site2.com:8443.
You could also obtain a new public IP address for www.site2.com. There will probably be cost involved, though. If you're using a SOHO Linksys router, it may not be able to handle translating a second IP address on your Internet link. If you'd prefer to go down this road, you'll want to check the router documentation to see what it can do. Also check with your provider to see if they do offer multiple IP's.
Hope this helps
-BTKnight
|
|
|
|
|
I have just set up a small server for testing, using SBS 2003. I have set it up as a domain controller, and my dev machine belongs to that domain. One of the first things I wish to test is a scenario where HTTP requests under many domain names access sub-directories of a single parent site.
Both my dev machine and domain controller are both currently set up to use my ISP's DNS, but I think I will need to set the DC up to use the ISP one, and my dev machine to use a DNS on my DC server. Is this a good option? How do I make my dev machine think it is actually accessing 'external' domain names?
|
|
|
|
|
You should use the dns on the DC Server for all computers on your network including the DC.
Then you set up a zone for every domain you want the dns to handle, it doesn't matter if this domain already exists outside the LAN, it will serve the records you have stored in the dns to all computers on the network. It will only use the root hints or forwarders for the domains it does not handle.
|
|
|
|
|
--@--.--- [~/public_html/user/unixp]# ls
./ ../ 1 a/ b/ ls
--@--.--- [~/public_html/user/unixp]# ls a
./ ../ a b
--@--.--- [~/public_html/user/unixp]# ls b
./ ../ b c
--@--.--- [~/public_html/user/unixp]# find ./b -name 'ls a' -exec rm {}\;
find: missing argument to `-exec'
Here i want to delete common files between directories A and B that is b from directory b.
|
|
|
|
|
nt_virus wrote: 'ls a'
Are these normal or back quotes?
|
|
|
|
|
yes. it is .. Single quote. 1-Key right of L.
|
|
|
|
|
nt_virus wrote: yes. it is .. Single quote. 1-Key right of L.
I think it should be the backquote '`' character which is just below the Esc key on my keyboard. I think in your case you have passed the string 'ls a' to the -name condition, whereas you actually want the output from the ls a command, so it needs to be put in backquotes for the shell to interpret correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
I rectified with backquote now..
----@---.-- [~/public_html/user/unixp]# find ./b -name `ls -a` -exec rm {}\;
find: warning: Unix filenames usually don't contain slashes (though pathnames do). That means that '-name ./' will probably evaluate to false all the time on this system. You might find the '-wholename' test more useful, or perhaps '-samefile'. Alternatively, if you are using GNU grep, you could use 'find ... -print0 | grep -FzZ ./'.
find: paths must precede expression
Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression]
now ? 
|
|
|
|
|
Erm, you changed ls a to ls -a!
|
|
|
|
|
----@---.-- [~/public_html/user/unixp]# find ./b -name `ls a` -exec rm {}\;
find: warning: Unix filenames usually don't contain slashes (though pathnames do). That means that '-name ./' will probably evaluate to false all the time on this system. You might find the '-wholename' test more useful, or perhaps '-samefile'. Alternatively, if you are using GNU grep, you could use 'find ... -print0 | grep -FzZ ./'.
find: paths must precede expression
Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression]
why this happening
|
|
|
|
|
nt_virus wrote: find: warning: Unix filenames usually don't contain slashes (though pathnames do). That means that '-name ./' will probably evaluate to false all the time on this system. You might find the '-wholename' test more useful, or perhaps '-samefile'. Alternatively, if you are using GNU grep, you could use 'find ... -print0 | grep -FzZ ./'.
find: paths must precede expression
Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression]
That's why! It has given you a complete explanation of the issue. Your ls command is still listing the directories with trailing '/' characters and the find command does not like it. I don't know which version of UNIX this is but there should be an option to suppress these characters. Take a look at the man page for ls. Also check whether you have aliased the command to set some default options.
|
|
|
|
|
You're on the right track. You don't need the -name parameter, though you'll probably want to make sure that each thing "find" locates is a file, and not something else like a directory or symlink.
"find" can be somewhat annoying in that it will spit out the entire relative pathname for each file it finds. That is,
find ./dirA -type f
will yield
./dirA/file1<br />
./dirA/file2
To get around that, just chdir into dirA before doing the find.
$ cd dirA
$ touch file1 file2 file4 file5
$ cd ../dirB
$ touch file1 file3 file5 file6
$ cd ..
$ ls dirA
file1 file2 file4 file5
$ ls dirB
file1 file3 file5 file6
$ cd dirA
$ find . -type f -exec rm -f ../dirB/{} \;
$ cd ..
$ ls dirA
file1 file2 file4 file5
$ ls dirB
file3 file6
$
I would have answered earlier, but I only joined last week.  Hope this late reply helps.
|
|
|
|
|
hello
Anyone has idea what's the difference between Norton Ghost Suite (http://www.symantec.com/business/ghost-solution-suite) and regular Norton Ghost (http://www.symantec.com/norton/ghost)
I looked at system requirement looks like "Norton Ghost Suite" supports Windows 2003 Enterprise, regular "Norton Ghost" don't.
For Windows 7 Enterprise, seems like both can do the job.
Am I right ..?
Thanks
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Symantec Ghost solution suite is the original Disk cloning program (made by Binary Research) made for cloning disks so that you can install many identical computers in a corporate environment.
Norton Ghost is the old Powerquest DriveImage which IMHO is nothing more than a backup program for home use on steroids.
Symantec = Business users.
Norton = Home users.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
