process kill

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 22:48:24 -0400, Paul responded :

taskkill /f /im notepad.exe

That works!
Thank you!

Shortcut TARGET = C:\Windows\System32\taskkill.exe /im "firefox.exe" /t /f

SUCCESS: The process with PID 5516 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 1068 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 3988 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 6460 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 8764 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 5204 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 3760 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 1656 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 8876 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 7700 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 8836 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 7096 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 6428 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 4672 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 1088 (child process of PID 4908) has been terminated.

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:48:45 -0400, Zaidy036 responded :

Second attempt would be FORCE kill: TASKKILL /IM "xxx.exe" /T /F

That works!
Thank you!

Shortcut TARGET = C:\Windows\System32\taskkill.exe /im "firefox.exe" /t /f

SUCCESS: The process with PID 5516 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 1068 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 3988 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 6460 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 8764 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 5204 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 3760 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 1656 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 8876 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 7700 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 8836 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 7096 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 6428 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 4672 (child process of PID 1088) has been terminated.
SUCCESS: The process with PID 1088 (child process of PID 4908) has been terminated.

Paul wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Paul wrote:
Kenny McCormack wrote:

A daemon is a service.
A fish is not a bicycle.
This is the IIS FTPd service.

Listening on port 21.

https://i.postimg.cc/cC0LddCN/ftp.gif

Paul

I tend to agree [1] with Kenny.

A (Windows) service can be considered to fall under the general
computer term "daemon".

BUT, a daemon is not necessarily a (Windows) service. I.e. you can
write a program which acts as a daemon, but is *not* a (Windows)
service, i.e. it's *not* listed my services.msc.

IOW, a Mercedes is a car, but a car is not necessarily a Mercedes.

So (IMO) you should have written "A (Windows) service is a daemon.".
That would have been correct, but irrelevant for the scenario Kenny was
describing.

[1] Very reluctantly, considering Kenny's recent behaviour and this
non-discussion looks to be more of the same.

One of the benefits of writing a daemon as a service, is
it fits into the service framework. You get automatic
monitoring for free. If the service dies, the system
has restart policies for it.

A service also uses fewer resources.

Many services do not execute even one CPU tick during
a given second.

Some services are constantly gnawing on the CPU. They never stop.

The OS may have a couple hundred services, but the vast majority
are the "quiet kind".

Some services are manually started, for attack surface
reasons. The service that holds the TrustedInstaller token,
isn't running all the time. If you have a copy of the program
that acquires the TrustedInstaller token, you have to start
the service manually your own self, in order to be able to
acquire a copy of the token. Many other system paths, automatically
start whatever holds the TrustedInstaller token. If you run "Setup.exe"
from something, that would be a trigger condition for a sequence
of that nature.

Yes, you can write an idiotic program that functions
as a daemon.

You can load up scheduled tasks with a set of entries to
keep your creation running. Now you have no convenient
command line commands to manage the daemon. You can always
create them yourself, because you love work, and you love
to clutter an OS with irrelevant crap (Apple, I'm lookin
at you).

You can pay a runtime price for running a full process.
Chances are, it will use slightly more CPU than if loaded
as a service in a SVCHOST.

In terms of Task Manager, your creation now sticks out like
a sore thumb, and will tempt users to kill it for all sorts
of reasons. They will see "Wally.exe" running and go
"why not kill this?". That's what users do.

While you *can* do that, your software developer peers
will think you're from Apple or something. Apple
always does the converse of whatever a Windows
developer would consider a "best practice".

Your daemon would still not be a daemon.
It would be a process. A process propped up by
"a variety of things you shouldn't be doing".

I picked my example (ftpd) for a reason.
As an analog. As a best practice.

I'm sure in Linux or Unix, you can do stupid
stuff too. Like instead of creating a daemon
and using init/systemd tools intended for
daemon launch/control, using your own creative
methods. But, others are going to laugh at
you, and your "hayseed ways". What will you
achieve by doing that ? Will you be putting
that project on your resume ? As an indicator
of "what you're capable of" ?

Hi Paul,

Your response completely misses (dodges?) the point I (and I think
Kenny) made, is mostly irrelevant and somewhat patronizing.

But no worries! You're one of the good guys, so the occasional slip up
is gladly forgiven.

Keep up the good work.

(AFAIC.) EOD.

In article ,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
....
Hi Paul,

Your response completely misses (dodges?) the point I (and I think
Kenny) made, is mostly irrelevant and somewhat patronizing.

But no worries! You're one of the good guys, so the occasional slip up
is gladly forgiven.

Paul does seem to have completely lost his mind in this thread.

Again, see sig.

Paul seems obsessed with "getting busy on the proof".

Keep up the good work.

I guess.

(And, you're right. Usually, Paul's mosts are well worth reading...)

--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

- John Kenneth Galbraith -