| Computing.Net: Over 1,000,000 posts about all things technology related! Over 90% answered within 24 hours! Click here to sign up now, it's free! |
Windows 2000 >> Batch file Problem
|
Original Message
|
Name: RickSw
Date: August 10, 2005 at 11:33:59 Pacific
Subject: Windows 2000 >> Batch file ProblemOS: Windows 2000CPU/Ram: PIIII/256 |
Comment: I have a simple batch file that uses the >> append output redictor. In Windows 2000 the batch file is acting as if I entered > and overwritting this output file. The simple form of the file is: echo %computername%,%username% >> q:\usage.txt Window 95/98/XP all seem to work fine and append the file. What's up with Windows 2000?
Report Offensive Message For Removal
|
|
Response Number 3
|
Name: Mechanix2Go
Date: August 10, 2005 at 13:57:04 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)I've got SP3 and no patches. I doubt it's a SP issue. The >> append has been stable in DOS and NT for a very long time. I can think of no reason / scenario which might prompt a change. You could try a fresh copy of CMD.exe, but that sems far-fetched. M2 If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 5
|
Name: RickSw
Date: August 10, 2005 at 14:38:40 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)More new Info... It seems to be a permissions problem. Giving "Everyone" full control fixed it. (Bad idea to leave it this way). So, I retraced the permissions and found that if the advanced special permission of "List Folder / Read Data” is removed it causes this problem. This was set to try and prevent people from looking at the logs but still allow them to append data. I can't explain it but that's the way it seems to work. Is there any way to hide this directory from users but still have them write to it for the audit log? Attrib to hidden will not work because, you just show hidden files and folders and your in. I’m still testing so I’m not saying this is the fix just yet but it looks promising.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 6
|
Name: Mechanix2Go
Date: August 10, 2005 at 20:57:53 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)I don't have a network to try it with. If this line is being run hours, or days, apart is there a chance that the usage.txt is being deleted between runs? Try running the line twice in rapid succession. Only two other things come to mind, equally Zappa-esque. Try changing to the q: drive. Try >>> M2
If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|

Post Locked
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
Go to Programming Forum Home