* alex23:
On Feb 16, 1:28 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
It's probably Very Good, but one Microsoft-thing one should be aware of: using
WMI functionality generally starts up a background WMI service...
"Probably"?
That means that since you say it's fantastic, it's probably very good.
"Probably" is a way to qualify the statement. Based on your earlier and current
quite emotional mode of expression I wouldn't take your word for an evaluation.
You haven't even used the module but you felt the need to
contribute anyway?
Yes, since I did not contribute about the module, but rather about the
functionality that it uses, which you didn't mention in your otherwise excellent
reply to the OP.
And I see that my suggestion is "probably" a security concern too.
Yeah. It has nothing to do with the module, though. Only with Microsoft's WMI.
Would it be too much to ask for you to provide
something other than unrelated anecdotes as evidence to support these
claims?
Google it.
E.g. <url: http://www.google.com/search?wmi+exploit>.
Other words and search engines might turn up other things, but the description
of not a security "hole" but a security "crater" seems to me to indicate that
it's not 100% secure.
Or perhaps produce an alternative solution[1] for the OP
instead of shitting over a working solution?
Oh yes, the confusion that technical facts are somehow an expression of personal
feelings and social matters, and can be chosen as one pleases, hence, that
providing a fact or pointing out a possibility that is unwanted, is "shitting".
From my point of view that's stupid.
But I also think that apart from your "shitting" on me (and there the analogy is
more apt, it's not about technical facts) it's great that you provide the kind
of help that you did, pointing out a probably very good module that it seems
gives the required functionality, and giving an URL.
[snip further speculative insults]
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
