What's the best way to MOVE an app to where it belongs, after it has already been installed?

[About the resident nymshifter, currently (not) known as "Arlen Holder":]

R.Wieser wrote:
Frank,

Of course one can't prove a negative

Quite. But you still seem to want to deny the possibility of the existance
of a positive - and even though you seem to concede that it happens for
other kinds of web-based communications.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote (and you quoted):

quote

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist

/quote

So I do not 'deny' anything, I just state the facts as they're known
(at the moment).

but - as I said - there is no indication that these Usenet
aggregators actually exist.

So, you deny the example I gave you ? Than I'm afraid we have, in this
regard, nothing to talk about anymore. Sorry.

And by the way, I did make a mistake. I referred to Googles usenet access
with the name "gmail", where it should have been, as some googleing showed
me, "google groups". Does that change anything for you(especially in
regard to your "usenet aggregation does not exist!" stance) ?

I read 'gmail' for what it is, but now I see you mean Google Groups.

However my position remains the same, no indication of let alone proof
- that such (Usenet) 'aggregators' actually exist.

Reading your additional comments, I realize that you perhaps might not
know what is meant by the term 'aggregators' (FYI, it's is he who
introduced that term in these non-discussions).

An 'aggregators' *combines* information from *multiple* sources, so
the example(s) you gave are *not* an example of aggregation.

See for example:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aggregator?s=t

"aggregator
...
2. Digital Technology. a web-based or installed application that
aggregates related, frequently updated content from various Internet
sources and consolidates it in one place for viewing: an automated
news aggregator."

Not quite (AFAIK). He's afraid that his *identity* will be found out.

How come you think so ? And how would that knowledge benefit or damage
anyone ?

Because he told us (YTIU) so, over and over ad nauseum.

As to the second question: Nonbody knows and nobody buys his
multi-tens-of-lines 'explanations'.

No offense, I know that you're a Usenet old hand, but apparently you
have little to no experience with this character. Sadly we have
experience, several years of it and it and his mental disorder (Yes, he
has a mental disorder and has publicly *said* so multiple times.) are
not getting any better.

Whether that found identity will be used against him is a subsequent
concern, not his primary (AFAIK).

I don't think so. Its the possibility of the latter which *causes* the
wish to conceal the former. The latter simply does not exist without the
former.

You're being logical. He doesn't do logic. (He *says* he does and even
claims he's an expert in also that area, but in reality he's more often
illogical than logical.)

Sorry, I can't post that info, because then also he will know
how's it's done,

Ofcourse. As your method of detection depends on him making mistakes, you
don't want him to get privvy to the ones he (still) does make.

In other words, its as good as looking at the way someone writes his
messages (word usage, punctuation, etc.), and infer that two messages must
have been from the same person.

FWIW, I use the header-analysis as confirmation. I.e. most of the time
it's clear as daylight - from his wording, posing, MO, etc. - that a new
nym is again him, but sometimes there can be the tiniest bit of doubt.
In the latter case, I look at the headers and immediately see "Yes, it's
him again.".

Bummer. I thought it was an exact science.

:-)

Nice chit-chatting :-) with you!

[About the common worthless troll current known as "Frank Slootweg"]
FWIW, I use the header-analysis as confirmation. I.e. most of the time
it's clear as daylight - from his wording, posing, MO, etc. - that a new
nym is again him, but sometimes there can be the tiniest bit of doubt.
In the latter case, I look at the headers and immediately see "Yes, it's
him again.".

Hi Frank Slootweg,

*How exactly do you unambiguously figure out it's me from my headers?*

Yes, this is me (or is it "this is I"?)

Anyway, besides my perfect grammar, punctuation, spelling, and the fact
that I have perfectly formatted subject lines, and that I post the *same*
paths, same phones, same machines, same operating systems, same menus, same
background, same locale (when it matters), same words (who else uses
"orthodox for a start menu for heaven's sake), etc.

*How exactly do you unambiguously figure out it's me from my headers?*

HINT: I find it funny that you (and others) accuse all sorts of people of
being me, and you're right half the time (roughly) and dead wrong the other
half of the time - where I don't dissuade you on either count as you
wouldn't believe me in either case (and there's no way to prove it either
way for me so it would be futile).

NOTE: If you can't figure out my posts in about ten seconds, just from the
subject & body, then you're a fool - but that's not the privacy that I
strategically aim for ('cuz I could easily change my vernacular & MO if I
felt like hiding from everyone with a brain - but I don't).

Frank,

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote (and you quoted):

quote

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist

/quote

So you want to deny you also wrote this:

For *other*
media, such as Gmail which you mentioned in your other posts,
Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., such aggregators of course
*do* exist,

I'm not the one putting those words into your mouth, *you* did.

So I do not 'deny' anything, I just state the facts as they're
known (at the moment).

Facts ? Seeing that you activily ignore any indication of the existance of
"a large collection of usenet messages, spanning at least a decade" (how's
that for trying not to let you trip over some word ?), I don't think you a
even have a working grasp of what that word means. Sorry.

However my position remains the same, no indication of let alone proof
- that such (Usenet) 'aggregators' actually exist.

Again, I beg to differ. See below.

An 'aggregators' *combines* information from *multiple* sources, so
the example(s) you gave are *not* an example of aggregation.

Guess again. Usenet is a distributed system, with no server obligated to
serve all newsgroups. So yes, if google groups wants to offer *all*
newsgroups it will have to combine them from different usenet servers.

Which is pretty much exactly the explanation you linked to, don't you think
?

And thats even when I do not agree with your singling-out that particular
explanation, as as far as I know the term "aggregation" can also be used for
a time-seperated combining of stuff . And with over a decade worth of
"stuff" in google groups (gathered every day), I think that the word is even
apropriate here.

No offense, I know that you're a Usenet old hand, but apparently
you have little to no experience with this character.

Guess again, again. As an "old hand" I've met them in all sorts and
variations. Most behave like you, trying to ignore what has being said,
stumble over words and complaining about not having said stuff (and/or being
amadant that their adversary said something he never did) in an attempt to
derail the conversation, and some are like Arlen, very "vocal" and going for
the messenger himself. The end effect is the same. No actual conversation
possible.

And as I do not see any wining move for me in that game you are playing I
bid you goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Frank,

And by the way, I ignored it because it was rather inconsequential to me,
but as you seem to be the person who wants words to be used strictly by
their definitions (as you know them), I cannot help wondering about the
below:

For *other* media, such as Gmail which you mentioned in your other
posts, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., such aggregators of course
*do* exist, but we're talking about Usenet, not those other media.

How come you have no problem to state that *single data source* services {1}
like gmail, google, facebook and twitter *can* be aggregated from and than
_as easily_ state that google groups *cannot* possibly aggregate - because,
as you seem think, all its data comes from a single source ?

Something stinks here, and this time it aint my socks. :-)

And no, I am not referring to you having made a mistake to where google
groups gets its data from, or how your used-and-linked-to definition of
"aggregation" is a partial one. Im referring to the fact that the very
reason you rejected google groups with seems to be fully ignored for the
companies you brought forward yourself.

{1} All of the data goes thru and is fully controlled by their respective
companies. And yes, that is ignoring that the first two are subsidiaries of
Google, with the mentioning of "google" in the quote assumed to be referring
to the search engine.
And no, its no fun to have to specify everything like this, just so you
don't trip up over yet another word. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:
[...]

Most behave like you, trying to ignore what has being said,
stumble over words and complaining about not having said stuff (and/or being
amadant that their adversary said something he never did) in an attempt to
derail the conversation, and some are like Arlen, very "vocal" and going for
the messenger himself. The end effect is the same. No actual conversation
possible.

And as I do not see any wining move for me in that game you are playing I
bid you goodbye.

Hi Rudy,

It's indeed best to agree to 'disagree'. From where I'm standing, your
comments match what I see, but the other way around. So we clearly have
our wires crossed and there's indeed no point continuing, because things
can only get from bad to worse.

In any case, no hard feelings from my side.

P.S. AFAIK/AFAICT, the tone of your post is out of character for you, so
I think that I might have offended you. That was not my intention. If
I've offended you, feel free to tell with what, so I can apologize
or/and clarify.

If by any chance it was the "Nice chit-chatting :-) with you!" which
offended you, please know that that was a sting at our resident
nymshifter, not at you.

Arlen Holder , frogging my 'From:' header, wrote:
[About the common worthless troll current known as "Frank Slootweg"]
FWIW, I use the header-analysis as confirmation. I.e. most of the time
it's clear as daylight - from his wording, posing, MO, etc. - that a new
nym is again him, but sometimes there can be the tiniest bit of doubt.
In the latter case, I look at the headers and immediately see "Yes, it's
him again.".

Hi Frank Slootweg,

*How exactly do you unambiguously figure out it's me from my headers?*

From your first line, it's clear that you are following the discussion
between Rudy Wieser and myself.

So why are you asking questions, which have been answered already?

Other than that, you've already asked this and similar questions
umpteen times and I have given you clue-by-fours as many times.

You're always boasting about your intelligence and cleverness, but
you're unable to figure out a trivial thing like this?

[More self-boasting deleted.]

HINT: I find it funny that you (and others) accuse all sorts of people of
being me, and you're right half the time (roughly) and dead wrong the other
half of the time - where I don't dissuade you on either count as you
wouldn't believe me in either case (and there's no way to prove it either
way for me so it would be futile).

Yet another of your lies. I've never accused others of being you.

So like for all of your other false claims:

Provide *proof* (cite and News URL) or stop lying.

[...]

R.Wieser wrote:
[...]

How come you have no problem to state that *single data source* services {1}
like gmail, google, facebook and twitter *can* be aggregated from and than
_as easily_ state that google groups *cannot* possibly aggregate - because,
as you seem think, all its data comes from a single source ?

Rudy,

We've already closed this (non-)discussion, so this is just FYI:

If you have (access to) a Facebook account, then see:

'How do I download a copy of my information on Facebook?'
https://www.facebook.com/help/212802592074644

For most 'normal' Facebook accounts, you will see that Facebook is
clearly *not* 'single-source', because - for example - companies which
the Facebook user has been in contact with *outside* Facebook, can/will
upload *their* data about the Facebook user to Facebook. So (some)
third-party data about a Facebook user is available to Facebook, i.e.
Facebook is not single-source.

For Facebook, I know this not only from reports - in the media etc. -
but from actual experience from downloading and analyzing the Facebook
data from SWMBO's account. For example, data from SWMBO's account at KLM
(Dutch airline) has been uploaded into her Facebook data. BTW, this is
no secret or anything, Facebook clearly 'admits' doing this, albeit in
hard to understand prose. This has also been widely covered in the
media, at least in the US and our country (NL).

For the others - Gmail, Google and Twitter - I only/mainly know their
multiple-source nature from reports, not so much from actual experience.

Hope this is of some use to you/others.

[...]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:04:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

What's the best way to MOVE an app to where it belongs, after it has
already been installed?

While the manual method of moving Epic worked almost perfectly, as a
general rule, manual modifications of already-installed software sucks as a
method.

This article implies the 2001 Ziff Davis COA & COA2 was replaced by
Sysinternals "Junction", but that's just making symbolic links:
https://www.infopackets.com/news/9789/how-move-installed-programs-another-drive-windows-7-8-10

The question never was about making links but about changing the location:
mklink /d C:\Path\Of\Original\Folder D:\Path\Of\New\Folder

Given that others have the same question, it behooves us to answer it:
https://superuser.com/questions/1018484/can-i-move-installed-programs-to-another-location-in-windows

Since it's always preferable to use Win10 *native* software, this helps:
How To Move Installed Apps To Another Drive In Windows 10
https://www.intowindows.com/how-to-move-installed-apps-to-another-drive-in-windows-10/

Which, if it worked, would be as simple as running:
Start Settings Apps Apps & features [epic] Move
But lots of things didn't show up in that list (as the article warned).

However, for the items that *do* show up in that list, the native "Move"
command would be perfect (if it works well).

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:38:22 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

Questions remain which will require a Windows 10 expert to resolve!
Q: What Windows magic happens during reboot (which allows default sets)?
Q: What Windows magic will put Epic in the app uninstall menus?

As an experiment to figure out what the actual Edge-related registry keys
are, I ran RevoUninstaller in Hunter Mode on the Epic shortcut that has
been working for a few days, with Epic already in the moved location of
c:\app\browser\http\ch_based\epic.exe

It seems that there are four places where Epic is in the registry:
http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_epic_registry01.jpg

The main location seems to be:
HKCU\Software\Classes\ChromiumHTM.26-character-unique-serial-number
That location also shows the shell open command default value of:
"C:\app\browser\http\ch_based\epic\epic.exe" -- %1"

But that's probably based on the shortcut, so we need to look to see how
Microsoft Windows 10 figured out that Epic existed, so that it could be set
to the Default Web Brower in the Microsoft Default Settings.

There are three other keys that might be that Microsoft magic:
HKCU\Software\Classes\ChromiumHTM.26-character-unique-serial-number
HKCU\Software\Epic
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Exp lorer\FileExts\.htm\UserChoice\
ProgId - ChromiumHTM.26-character-unique-serial-number
(the same for the .html default setting)
HKCU\Software\Classes\ChromiumHTM.26-character-unique-serial-number

What's interesting is that the mere action of "moving" Epic to where it
belongs and rebooting, causes those keys to be placed into the Windows
registry.

If you don't reboot, Epic doesn't work.
If you reboot. Epic works.

Those four registry keys are what showed up between those two phases,
hence, they are probably the "magic" that enables Epic to be an option to
be set as the Widows default web browser.

On 3 Jul 2018 00:36:35 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

Which, if it worked, would be as simple as running:
Start Settings Apps Apps & features [epic] Move
But lots of things didn't show up in that list (as the article warned).

However, for the items that *do* show up in that list, the native "Move"
command would be perfect (if it works well).

For the tribal knowledge to benefit, this article suggests the Steam Mover:
https://www.intowindows.com/how-to-m...in-windows-10/

But again, it simply creates "Junction Points", so, Steam Mover is not all
that useful as a program mover.
http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover