On 3/18/2010 3:54 AM, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 17/03/2010 20:43, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> The intent is just to provide as similar as possible a user experience.
>>> From a coding POV, it is surely simpler to just use 'winuser' and
>>> 'wingroup',
>> but I am sort of philosophically wired to not throw
On 17/03/2010 20:43, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
The intent is just to provide as similar as possible a user experience.
From a coding POV, it is surely simpler to just use 'winuser' and 'wingroup',
but I am sort of philosophically wired to not throw information away if
it's a available from the OS.
On 3/17/2010 2:59 PM, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 17/03/2010 19:07, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> That's not really so. Windows definitely has the notions of users and
>> groups,
>> they just don't quite align with the POSIX model exactly.
>
> Yes, my comment was a little blase. I know that Windows has users
On 17/03/2010 19:07, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
That's not really so. Windows definitely has the notions of users and groups,
they just don't quite align with the POSIX model exactly.
Yes, my comment was a little blase. I know that Windows has users & groups:
http://timgolden.me.uk/python/win32_how_d
On 3/17/2010 12:05 PM, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 17/03/2010 16:32, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> I have a pure-Python program developed on a POSIX platform (FreeBSD) that
>> I'd like to make fully compatible with Windows systems as well. The only
>> conflict arises insofar as this program makes considerable
On 17/03/2010 16:32, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I have a pure-Python program developed on a POSIX platform (FreeBSD) that
I'd like to make fully compatible with Windows systems as well. The only
conflict arises insofar as this program makes considerable use of the
stat UID and GID values, as well as th
