Re: Nominations (4) -> Re: Several ways you can delete a large avi file, and other files that might say they are in use.

From: John Henry (jhd_at_insurgent.orgy)
Date: 11/16/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:44:50 -0500

Yo, Dustin Cook, I dug her rap! Mah mama din raise no dummehs!

>
> John Henry wrote:

>> *shrug* I don't claim infallability - only the essential knowledge of my
>> own limitations and ignorance, something that you glaringly lack.
>
> *laughing*

QED.

> You know, I believe another poster

Why the hell do I care what another poster did?
 
> Viruses are something you know very little about.

I've asid this many times...not only do I know very little about them, I
*care* very little about them. I don't do stupid *** and I keep my AV
software running and updated. I've never one time been hit with a
virus, and the chances that I ever will be are quite slim.

>> Again with the reading comprehension. A TRS-80 III is not a coco3. I
>> didn't say anything about the coco3, yet you're correcting me on
>> something I didn't say.
>
> Not a reading comprehension problem, it's you who has a hard time
> accepting the fact thatTandy, not me called the coco a trs80. The
> trs80-III was a coco3 to some,

Some idiots, maybe. They were two different computers; one a self
contained gray box with a monochrome monitor and a Z80, the other a
color-capable console and a 6809. Just because a three morons with web
pages say that a horse and a cow are the same thing doesn't make it a
valid observation.

> Bad guess.

No, it was a good guess, just a wrong one. A bad guess would have been
"Because the TRS-80 III had a monochrome monitor," since that machine has
nothing to do with the conversation.

Well, maybe it does to you.

> Isn't it fun playing with different trs80's and then arguing about them
> in public? I don't know much about your first box, and you don't know
> much about mine. Aside from the fact that the manufacturer only seemed
> to confuse things when they labeled both as Trs80s.

The original color computer was labeled as a TRS-80 only in it's first,
short, initial manufacturing run, to capitalize on the value of the
already existing TRS80 brand. The vast majority of them were labeled
'Tandy Color Computer.'

> And yet, we're arguing about things 20+years old that nobody even cares

I'm not arguing about anything, I'm pointing and laughing and continuing
to demonstrate why, even if you invent an OS tomorrow that has all of the
versatility and ability to run already-existing software as Windows and
all the stability and security of Linux, you'll still be a blithering
fucking idiot who has absolutely no business giving anyone advice about
computers.

>> I didn't figure any such thing. Again, reading comprehension is yoru
>> friend. Learn it. Love it.
>
> Did I misquote you or something?

No, the quoting was fine. It's the READING that is the problem.

>> Please find me an example of anything that would spoof a user-agent to
>> artificially ID as another OS without user intervention.
>
> So, lemme get this straight, it has to be something already known?

If you propose to write something, I'd like to know *why* you would want
it to do such a thing, other than to win an argument on Usenet that you
lost about a million posts ago.

See, your problem is you just don't think very clearly.

> You don't have the foggiest idea how malware works...
>
> I'm not trying to claim that's what happened, so please don't try
> twisting my words around, I'm simply stating its a possibility.

It's a possibility that the Unknown Hand Of God Herself touched the CPU
and instructed it to send a fake user-agent header, too, but the chances
of it are so small that it's not worth considering, and even bringing it
up would serve no purpose but to act as a cheap diversion from the fact
that you can't answer the question, but still feel the need to run your
mouth.

You see, kid, it's not about what's "possible," it's about what's probable
and plausible.

> News Xpress isn't a real news reader? Maybe you should complain to
>> > it's author. He seems to think it was.
>>
>> Retroactive clue-absorption isn't the same has having a damn clue in
>> the first place, kid.
>
> The reason I made the comment is because years ago, I used it. When I
> posted as Raid; a simple google.com search would have found that for
> you. "Kid" Teeh, I'm not much younger then you, punk.

But you see, I'm not interested in googling you. You're here, now, making
an ass out of yourself...why would I want to do some obsessive
stalkeriffic thing like googling up your years-old posts just to see
what fuckin newsreader you were using?

And I don't care when your birthday is; socially speaking, you're an
infant.

>> It's a public school system, not ILM. You can do some very high
>> quality stuff with Premiere - just takes forever to render it.
>
> Yes.. but theres much better, professional software available.

Name some that runs on a pentium-class machine under windows XP and will
do something that premiere doesn't, or will do it so much faster that it's
worthwhile to a) turn down free software from adobe and b) shift a bunch
of high-schoolers out of a UI paradigm they're already familiar with.

> Yet you respond to me, without reading what I've already wrote. How
> enlightening.

So you're claiming to have read every message I've ever posted before you
reply to me, including researching any of the nyms I may have used in the
past? Did you manage to check BITNET and FIDONet, too? I ask because I'd
really love to find a decent archive of the old pre-Internet FIDONet
messages, like google.

>> > It would be like me trying to tell a car mechanic I know more then he
>> > does, but I never read about it.
>>
>> No it wouldn't. I don't claim to know a damn thing about writing
>> viruses. I have, however, pointed out a ridiculous number of your
>> errors on other topics, which you seem to think should be ignored
>> because you once wrote a virus that infected a couple of dozen
>> machines.
>
> Once wrote a virus? that infected a couple dozen machines? You are a
> bigger idiot then I assumed you were in the beginning. Stick to your
> basic, punk, it's all you know.

The one you claimed by name to have written has a total ITW penetration of
less than 24 machines, per Symantec. Believe them, or believe some dork
on a newsgroup?

>> More than one of us has known what's going on - I'm publicly
>> humiliating you while watching you hoist yourself on your own petard.
>
> Humiliating me? Your an idiot.

Irony, they name is Dustbin.

> You speak from your arse completely concerning me.

You're still hung up on the notion that what you wrote, or if you wrote
it, or whatever, makes a bit of a damn to me aren't you?

How cute.

> And you think you have some kind of following? Moron.

Feel free to point out where I said I think I have some kind of following.

You'd be much better off if you'd just *learn to read*.
>
>> > That's one example, Here's another, again based off of your silly
>> > example:
>> > Find a large avi file on your hard disk, now right click it, now
>> > immediatly attempt to delete the file via console. Here's the amusing
>> > message you get if you try:
>> > "The process cannot access the file because it is being used by
>> > another process."
>> > That process is explorer.exe
>>
>> Worked just fine for me. Want screenshots?
>
> If explorer opens the file, you can't delete it. File handles, learn
> them, idiot.

But I did precisely as you instructed and the file was deleted. I even
went so far as to type the del command *first* and then rightclick the
file and then immediately jump back to the command prompt and hit enter,
for minumum transition time.

> If you were able to delete the file, then explorer did not have a handle
> to it, idiot.

Then your instructions were for ***, obviously; I followed them to the
letter and had no problem deleting the file.

Of course, you ignore the fact that the problem you are describing only
applies to files that are corrupt (or badly authored).

> As I said, this is a knownproblem with windows and .avi files. Now,
> since I had to be bothered enough to explain all of this *** to you,
> Here's what the *** is going on, and why it's locking the goddamn file
> in the first place:

Temper, temper, kid. Screaming and cussing isn't going to make you look
any less stupid, or make your proposed solution any less unweildy,
esoteric, and ridiculously over-complicated for solving a problem that
can be fixed with a simple patch.

> http://www.techzonez.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-8442.html
>
> Now fucktard, be enlightened.

At what, some dork who wants me to modify my registry to fix an error
that, near as I can tell, seems to affect a very small number of users,
one of whom is not me? I've got terabytes of AVI files that I've created
over the years, and I've simply never had the problem you describe...and
if I did, there are lot of things I'd try before I merged a regfile from
some website to it.

> The poster needs to make a registry key
> change if he wants it permanent, OR kill the explorer process to delete
> the file if he doesn't. That's how you do it, get over your inflated 80s
> knowledge

Hey, you're the one bragging about running MSDos on a tandy color
computer.

> and get with the program, moron.

But you're assuming that the root of the problem is this one error, when
there are dozens of other, more common, simpler explanations.

Additionally, a quick scan of Google shows that this problem is a) fixed
in SP2, which the OP should have been running anyway, b) applies only to
XP and XPhome without SP2, c) is caused only by AVI files without indices
(rare). Probability approaches 1 that if you have an AVI file with no
index, it's corrupt and won't fuggin work anyway.

Not to mention d) when you use YOUR method, you lose the ability to view
thumbnails/previews in Explorer for all the video files on your computer.

Seems like easier solutions would include a) not downloading corrupted
.avi files, b) not using a pirated copy of Windows that you're afraid to
patch from MS.com, or c) apply the hotfix from MS (released in August
of 2003, http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822430;
please don't make a bigger fool of yourself by ignoring the datestamp on
the file and pointing out that the kb article was last updated a few
weeks ago, therefore this fix must be brand new) that fixes the problem
*without* having to use regedit and *without* losing functionality of
scope far beyond the scope of the actual problem.

Of course, there is the secondary consideration of wondering why the avi
is corrupt in the first place; if it's an originally-authored file, it
could be an early warning sign of a hard drive going to ***. But that's
another issue altogether.

But hey, what the hell do I know, right? Far better to impress the world
with how 1337 I am by using some half-baked registry hack.

> All you have to do to fix this problem is delete the registry key:

> This prevents explorer from loading shmedia.dll which is used to provide
> you with properties of AVI (DivX) files. My understanding is that due to
> the way DivX files are encoded, XP has trouble collecting the properties
> and gives you the file in use message when you try to delete them."

His understanding is wrong; it's not due to 'the way DivX files are
encoded,' it's due to the fact that the particular .avi in question is
either corrupt or badly authored, and XP has a problem with *that*.

And what does your solution provide for those of us who *want* to be able
to find the properties, including thumbnails, of .avi files?

> The poster didn't mention what the .avi file was, but if it's a
> divx/xvid, this is why he couldn't remove it. .avi is simply a
> container, the codec can piss windows off. Now everybody has learned
> several things in this discussion. (1) the problem is real (2) you do
> have to kill explorer/rename the file then delete, OR! delete that
> registry key. (3) I do know what I'm talking about and (4) your a
> fucking moron.

not to mention (5) Your solution is unnecessarily esoteric and complex,
(6) it has undesireable side-effects, (7) it is addressed in both existing
service packs and existing hotfixes that were released years ago and that
any idiot can install, and (8) in spite of being repeatedly called on it,
you are *still* incapable of properly contracting "you are."

*You're* a fucking moron, kid. But hey, keep on painting that target on
*your* forehead, I can always use an ego boost. 

-- 
John Henry
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd
Look upon my works, O Ye Mighty, and giggle.