Peter Hansen wrote:
> I don't think there's any significant difference between the above
> (assuming you add in the missing quotation marks) and
> os.system('shutdown -r -f'), except that the os.system() approach is
> shorter and more readable if you are simply discarding or printing the
> outp
Peter Hansen wrote:
> You can't be doing exactly that, since there are no sockets involved...
> do you mean the above call is executed -- on the receiving end -- after
> some signal is received via a socket in another part of the code? That's
> not going to have any effect on things...
Here's t
Peter Hansen wrote:
> You can't be doing exactly that, since there are no sockets involved...
> do you mean the above call is executed -- on the receiving end -- after
> some signal is received via a socket in another part of the code? That's
> not going to have any effect on things...
>
Here
Le Tue, 17 May 2005 13:50:08 -0400, rbt a écrit :
> Is it more appropriate to use os.popen or os.system on a windows XP
> client?
Nope. use the subprocess module :-)
Microsoft had the great idea to embed white space inside a lot of
directories (compare C:\Program Files\ to /usr/bin ) which mean
rbt wrote:
> Is it more appropriate to use os.popen or os.system on a windows XP
> client? I'm calling the operting system's shutdown function like this:
>
> restart = os.popen(shutdown -r -f)
> print restart.read()
> restart.close()
I don't think there's any significant difference between the a
