Process Hacker and Windows discussion

 
Bill987

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 08:59

I think you can add those missing functions in 2.36

& Resolve this issue immediately

Or provide a dll which loads before 3rd party plugins load to use older plugins.
 
User avatar
wj32
Founder
Posts: 948
Joined: 17 Jan 2011 05:19
OS: Windows
Contact:

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 09:29

Sorry, given the ease of updating the code, it is not worth adding these functions back to maintain compatibility (and incorrect UTF handling, in fact).
 
Bill987

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 09:37

What about a Optional DLL for supporting older plugins ?

Those who want to use older plugins, will use this Optional DLL with ph.exe ?

????
 
User avatar
dmex
Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: 17 Jan 2011 05:43

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 09:40

Bill987 wrote:
Resolve this issue immediately
You can continue using using 2.33 until those plugins are recompiled... Or give me the names and I guess I'll just write a newer version :thinking:
Bill987 wrote:
There should be old functions support for a long period of time.
That was the first breaking change in 3 years.
Bill987 wrote:
Or provide a dll which loads before 3rd party plugins load to use older plugins.
The functions are exported by ProcessHacker.exe so you would need to use an older executable anyway.
Last edited by dmex on 19 May 2015 10:54, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fix version typo
 
Bill987

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 09:48

For DMex:-

> There should be old functions support for a long period of time.
> That was the first breaking change in 3 years.

>> Plugin was shared in 2014 not 3 years ago


> You can continue using using 2.34 ?

>> 2.33


Developing a new DLL is the only option LEFT.
 
User avatar
LindaAthena
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 71
Joined: 04 Apr 2012 20:58
OS: win7-64bit + SuSE Linux(x64)

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 10:54

Bill987 wrote:
LindaAthena is right.

There should be old functions support for a long period of time.
I think you missed my point. How long to keep old functions around is a balancing act. Furthermore, you can't compare how long MS supports something that you and millions of people pay money to for years of support versus "how long" an open-source project is obligated to provide long-term support (at the expense of new features or compatibility w/new OS's or new OS features).

One of the "features" (good and bad) about open source is that not as many dollars need to be spent on support since no one is paying for the product. In watching people work on the linux distro I use, I see them going for running a 'trusted OS' that could be used by vendors to allow you to rent movies or games and be safe from piracy or having to pay for previous software compatibility. Sorta like 'Steam' requires you to 'reboot' there program (closing any game or forums you are in to switch to their 'secure mode'. At the same time, Intel is developing ways of automatically controlling what programs run on a secure boot, so you could only run the software your computer vendor 'rents' to you.

You'll technically 'own' your PC, but MS has plans to require Windows & Microsoft certified HW to only allow 'secure boot', perhaps as early, sometime in the lifetime of Windows-10. In Windows-8 they only require(d) secure boot from manufacturers using non-Intel chip, like mips or PowerPC. Essentially those things are 'consoles' that you have paid PC prices for. Yuck! Even though many have complained about the direction open-software is taking -- those in control of the software say it is a "do-ocracy" -- those who "do" get to make the decisions.

However, theoretically, it is _open source_, so you can always step up and do it your way. But not every one has the time or ability to redo every program that they use or want to change. My distro shipped over 70,000 software packages in their latest release (13.2) If I 'only' needed to change .1% of programs to meet my "needs" (wants), that's still 70 programs I need to learn and change -- ouch!

But the option IS still available, and I do patch and rebuild many programs I use on linux. You too can patch programs (or learn how), or pay someone else to do it if you really don't have the time to do it yourself.
I still don't know why wj32 want no plugin developers & new plugins.
wj32 has never said they don't want plugin developers -- if that was the case why would they have provided a plugin interface in the first place?
If you compare ph with other open source which support 3rd party plugins, all have many plugins & plugin developers except ph.
...like linux? yes, they have lots of developers --- but Linus's policy on the internal API of linux is that it is subject to change at ANY time -- and he has changed it and forced everyone to jump.

You also have to compare apples to apples -- what other system-introspection software is out there in ANY product that has as many features as PH? The only other two projects that might be considered for OS introspection might be sysinternals process explorer or Microsoft's Task Manager -- NEITHER of them, AFAIK, support plugins, because as the OS evolves, they may have to evolve way too much to keep compatibility with previous plugins.

However, it seems like you are offering a solution:
Bill987 wrote:
I think you can add those missing functions in 2.36
& Resolve this issue immediately
Or provide a dll which loads before 3rd party plugins load to use older plugins.
---
It sounds like you are volunteering to add the missing function and/or provide a dll to solve the problem that wj could test and include -- problem solved.

I certainly am impressed that you are willing to step up and put your efforts on the line to keep the functions you _need_.

Hey, while you are in there working on the code -- ALL of the measurements displayed are in *absolute* numbers -- amount of memory allocations/s or amount of MB of data (I/O) per second, etc. All of them *except* cpu, which is displayed as cpu time used on the system, then divided by the # of cpu's, then divided by the # of cpu cycles (which vary) or divided by absolute time. But since cpu seconds have already been divided by the # of "similar-x86-64" processors in the machine, cpu time is already divided by some arbitrary number that prevents obvious machine-to-machine performance metrics and hides the nature of programs -- specifically whether they are single threaded or efficient.

For example, if a file transfer program only spends 5% of the cpu when running with 25 different filestreams -- that sounds rather efficient.

Because of that efficiency you think you want to try it on an old machine you want to dedicate to serving files. But when you try it, the machine locks up. Your old single-core machine can't begin to match the speed of 1 of the test machine's 20 cores (2 sockets, 10 cores each).

To make matters worse, the disks on the test machine only showed the disks as 3-5% busy -- lots of spare I/O... but again, if you display I/O as a percent of of time spent waiting for I/O, it would hide a 24 disk RAID10 (w/12 stripes) that can easily do 1.2GB/s for large reads and writes ... compared to that old machine you thought you would try to use as a server that only has a 1 disk (on RAID).

Anytime you divide your final figure by the # of HW service units you end up with a figure of dubious worth, no?

Well, on 2nd thought, never mind, maybe I'll get to doing that myself some day (unlikely given the other projects on my plate, but pigs might fly! ;-)).

Cheers and waiting to see what your new DLL is going to do... Sorry, this post is so long -- I didn't really have the time to make it shorter... ;-(
-l
 
User avatar
TETYYS
Contributor
Posts: 515
Joined: 23 Apr 2013 10:37
OS: Win 10 x64

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 11:09

oh boy here we go...
 
Bill987

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 11:36

>>why would they have provided a plugin interface in the first place?

> For Self Development only. Limited Functions only.

> To make his work / compilation a easy task.

Rather than compiling the whole program.
 
User avatar
wj32
Founder
Posts: 948
Joined: 17 Jan 2011 05:19
OS: Windows
Contact:

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 11:39

I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. Just update the source code (which will take 5 mins at most) and recompile.
 
User avatar
LindaAthena
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 71
Joined: 04 Apr 2012 20:58
OS: win7-64bit + SuSE Linux(x64)

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

19 May 2015 21:35

Point...? I thought Bill was volunteering to upgrade some extension, then, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I wondered if they wanted to do any other work, but in the end thought, maybe not.

If you are talking about me learning how to run Microsoft's version of 'configure && make' -- it hasn't made it high enough _my_ want-list to make it happen, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. As I said to Bill, either of us can submit changes or extensions...but I sometimes go off on tangents when I'm tired (and when I'm not), so, just ignore it. I try to. :oops:

Right now I'm wondering why I had 2700 copies of a junk file sprinkled throughout, mostly windows-related files on my linux server. I found it very weird, but I think a program I was working on several months ago ran amok and "deduplicated" ~2700 files that weren't really duplicates... (at least that's what appears to be so... very weird). 1 file ~4K long with over 2700 hard links to it (the program (in perl) ran fine on linux, but apparently didn't quite run the same way under cygwin on windows...
 
User avatar
TETYYS
Contributor
Posts: 515
Joined: 23 Apr 2013 10:37
OS: Win 10 x64

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

20 May 2015 12:02

well, PH isn't designed to run on linux.
 
User avatar
LindaAthena
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 71
Joined: 04 Apr 2012 20:58
OS: win7-64bit + SuSE Linux(x64)

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

20 May 2015 22:49

TETYYS wrote:
well, PH isn't designed to run on linux.
:thinking: :shock: Well, I thought wine should work... :angel:
 
User avatar
viksoftru
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 15 Aug 2011 06:01
OS: Win7 (Live! DVD), BSD

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

21 May 2015 13:22

For UNIX like systems have their tools are often built into the GUI shell. Why do not you use them? In this case, the native tools is the best choice than running through PH WINE HQ as their internal architecture consistent with the architecture of the OS, any such tool is created for a platform (in this case Windows) will inevitably be functionally limited opportunities outside the guest OS emulator.
 
User avatar
LindaAthena
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 71
Joined: 04 Apr 2012 20:58
OS: win7-64bit + SuSE Linux(x64)

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

21 May 2015 18:13

Maybe I can run it in a VM...

(people really don't get emoticons much, eh?)

xlation - put cursor over emoticon and tells you the sense with which the message was said.

i.e. 1st thinking, 2nd shock, third come up with wine as option with an innocent look so over the top it was angelic....

Hey...if it worked on wine, it probably be a good test of wine's compatibility...

As for unix systems having things built into "the" gui shell -- which one?
 
User avatar
TETYYS
Contributor
Posts: 515
Joined: 23 Apr 2013 10:37
OS: Win 10 x64

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

21 May 2015 18:48

LindaAthena wrote:
TETYYS wrote:
well, PH isn't designed to run on linux.
:thinking: :shock: Well, I thought wine should work... :angel:
no no, PH is only windows and im sure it contains code that applies only to windows internals that cannot be replicated on linux
 
User avatar
viksoftru
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 15 Aug 2011 06:01
OS: Win7 (Live! DVD), BSD

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

21 May 2015 19:33

LindaAthena wrote:
As for unix systems having things built into "the" gui shell -- which one?
X11R6, Motif, WinView (SunOS), KDE, Gnome, e.t.c. :)
 
User avatar
LindaAthena
Member
Topic Author
Posts: 71
Joined: 04 Apr 2012 20:58
OS: win7-64bit + SuSE Linux(x64)

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

22 May 2015 03:13

viksoftru wrote:
LindaAthena wrote:
As for unix systems having things built into "the" gui shell -- which one?
X11R6, Motif, WinView (SunOS), KDE, Gnome, e.t.c. :)
Which GUI has similar functionality as PH in what program? I can think of one program as part of Gnome (Gnome - system monitor) that doesn't show as much as 'htop', or top, but it looks fairly nice.. It also shows a "static" what's full map of disks, which is worthless to show as a graph. It doesn't show file-io/ process i/o or network I/O. Trying to look at a memory map just now had it crash. that does a decent job of showing processes running, but it is pretty much a "view-only'. Most of the fields display blanks..AND importantly, it is a read-only interface for the most part (you can kill a process, but not change privs, or any of the 100 things that PH does.

I think you are very mistaken in thinking there is any thing like PH for linux. There are bits and pieces, but almost all of them are read-only interfaces -- can't set affinities or io-priorities or memory priorities...nothing but a cpu-priority.

It is unfortunate. I've been giving a stab at restructuring xosview, but after some initial success, making it flexible enough to do all that I want has my brain going in circles.

The meters I usually have running are these two:
xosview
iomon(in a terminal window)
meters.png
-- and to show the detail, the xos-one, full screen shows real fine details about what's going on, -- I'd like to see more info via hovering, but that's off in the future.
But the same graph, (about a minute later), @ full screen shows all the detail it's taking in and storing...
meters1.png
 
User avatar
viksoftru
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 15 Aug 2011 06:01
OS: Win7 (Live! DVD), BSD

Re: Bug in new version: missing routine

22 May 2015 06:07

Any such software is entirely dependent on the implementation of the operating system and therefore if for example the program to take control of "Eye" that we are on the IBM OS/360 MVT called "eye system programmer" :) because it lets you see and control all the processes, tasks, SVC (Supervisor Call - this OS kernel modules are characterized by structure (type 1 and 3 are loaded into memory, types 2 and 4 overlay) and differ admissibility interrupt during their work - types 1 and 3 disables all interrupts except the not mask (critical) interrupts control computer circuits, but for types 2 and 4 all interrupts are enabled)) type 1/2/3/4 (in Windows this services, in UNIX are demons) and a control unit OS (JCB - Job Control Block) and move it to the example in IBM AIX or IBM AS/400, tyo, even if we see that there is an emulator, the program is complete nonsense because the calculated on a different internal architecture of the operating system will give us the screen false information about the state of the operating system under study, but because that is the platform for which it was created, it does not apply, and the formulation of the problem because, in principle, is not true because based on clearly incorrect premise architectural compatibility of different operating systems. But if you simply recompile the OS to the CPU with a different set of computer instructions, but the preservation of its architecture, then we can talk about that issued the CPU to recompile the program information is correct, otherwise, these values ​​correspond to anything from the price of the snow in the Arctic and ending fantasies small child is not in relation to the reality of the state of their level of reliability is equal to zero.

Summary:

What you describe as an "error of Process Hacker" is really a mistake, but not in the PH, and your views on what the operating system and how it is set, but because I believe that this topic is dealt with under Off-Topic as this educational material is not appropriate within the meaning of razbiramyh there questions for the section Tips and Tutorials but useful for people because knowledge are not redundant, and "... All the people know only a secondary education - they do not know how much they do not know yet .. "/ Academy of Sciences of the USSR Tikhonov A.N. (famous mathematician) /.