Why do I need WBEM?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Is anyone beginning to understand why I haven't commented again after my
initial attempt to help?
I suspect Mike and Richard know all too well ...

IMO, Mr. Corliss would be well advised to let well enough alone, and turn
his attention to his other computing issues.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:uiz%23jHKDFHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hey, is it time for dinner again already? ;-)
>
<SNIP>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
>> I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster.
>
> Primarily because what he is posting is not just wrong but dangerous and
> will cause far more problems to the user than any it might purport to
> solve.

Dangerous? All he said was to leave WBEM alone. You *are* talking about
"anonymous" aren't you? Am I missing something? 80)>

--
Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does not.

Yes... yes.... great. Since you're an MVP, I have no doubt that you do.
That's not the issue.

> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other couple
> dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I am talking
> about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with network
> interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other threads is
> equally laughable.

Sure, but Richard, not only did you completely clip out my laboriously
composed effort to steer the thread back to its original topic (which I
was very much hoping you would discuss and critique), you've also
converted the intent of this thread from solving my problem into being
basically a discussion of whether or not "anonymous" had a right to post
a reply.

In fact, the conservative advice he gave (basically to leave WBEM alone)
ultimately turned out to be correct as far as I can tell (since doing so
would remove System Information functionality.) On the other hand, he
may be wrong but nobody so far has discussed the merits of *removing* WBEM.

I know that I could simply remove it and if it doesn't work out,
reinstall it, BUT I personally don't know if that process might cause
any unforseen problems based on whether or not modification of WBEM by
one of the many system updates has occurred. Thus, there are actually
*two* reasons for me not to remove WBEM.

Let's get this straight: I have absolutely NO interest in any flame
wars. I came here looking for advice and I welcome replies from
*anybody* - not just from MVPs. The whole idea of usenet is to openly
*and courteously* discuss ideas, so let's allow that to happen. I don't
have time for parlor games or turf wars.

Now, can we PLEASE get back to my original question?

--
Thanks and regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Jack E Martinelli wrote:

> Is anyone beginning to understand why I haven't commented again after my
> initial attempt to help?

Jack,
Don't get me wrong. I did very much appreciate your replying to my
post. The link you provided was a start. However, it really didn't
answer the question in my OP. Or did I miss something?

> I suspect Mike and Richard know all too well ...

Hmmmm..... a snide inside joke, eh? Is that supposed to put me in my
place as a "non MVP"? 80)>

> IMO, Mr. Corliss would be well advised to let well enough alone, and turn
> his attention to his other computing issues.

Thanks, but I'm focused on *this* issue right now, and I intend to
pursue it. If you prefer not to participate in this thread then....
simply *don't*.

But thanks again for replying the first time.

--
Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:

> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does not.
>
> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other couple
> dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I am talking
> about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with network
> interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other threads is
> equally laughable.
>

Richard my apologies for my other reply to this post. I didn't
understand that "anonymous" has been a problem in this group.

--
Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I will attempt to remain polite to you, disregarding what I interpret to be
your personal attacks, and suggest that you repost your question (issue?) in
a Microsoft programmer or developer ng, where you will find commenters far
more qualified than me to explain the working of WBEM and WMI to you.
My previous intent was to lead you to the beginning of information which
would briefly explain how these management tools are woven into the core of
the modern Windows. Killing them can (may?) have many unexpected
consequences. Therefore, my comment regarding you to "let well enough
alone", esp. as you were not reporting any problems with the OS.
IMO, even if you successfully terminate WBEM under WinME, it will not
improve performance enough to merit the risk.
I did not intend to imply anything else about you in particular.

Nothing counts in the WinME NG's except the correctness and merit of the
answers, and the courtesy of the commenters.
There is no "MVP clique".

Personally, I find your text style here to be somewhat argumentative and
combative, where neither is needed. IOW, you have taken offense rather too
easily. Your overly active imagination is misleading you about perceived
slights. But it is not nearly the worst failing we have seen here. And
you have retained a modicum of courtesy, for which I thank you.

I do think you can be helped better elsewhere. Thank you for your
understanding. Good luck with your future research efforts.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:O4ipqwdDFHA.3416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Jack E Martinelli wrote:
>
> > Is anyone beginning to understand why I haven't commented again after my
> > initial attempt to help?
>
> Jack,
> Don't get me wrong. I did very much appreciate your replying to my
> post. The link you provided was a start. However, it really didn't
> answer the question in my OP. Or did I miss something?
>
> > I suspect Mike and Richard know all too well ...
>
> Hmmmm..... a snide inside joke, eh? Is that supposed to put me in my
> place as a "non MVP"? 80)>
>
> > IMO, Mr. Corliss would be well advised to let well enough alone, and
turn
> > his attention to his other computing issues.
>
> Thanks, but I'm focused on *this* issue right now, and I intend to
> pursue it. If you prefer not to participate in this thread then....
> simply *don't*.
>
> But thanks again for replying the first time.
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> Am I missing something? 80)>

Yes. You quite clearly haven't read any of his posts.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Dangerous? All he said was to leave WBEM alone. You *are* talking
> about "anonymous" aren't you? Am I missing something? 80)>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:

>> Am I missing something? 80)>
>
> Yes. You quite clearly haven't read any of his posts.

No, I HAVE read the post he made to this thread. That's all that's
important to me. I couldn't care about his posting history. As I
mentioned in another post, I'm only interested in getting information
and advice from this group, not in engaging in ego wars.

Now, to get this thread back on topic I will reinsert my summary of the
issue to this point and HOPE that somebody will read it and offer
discussion.
________________________________________________________________

The following is a summarization of my experiences and what I've found
after a lot of looking around on the internet. I welcome constructive
criticism...

My assertion still stands that WBEM is *primarily* a tool used by system
administrators to manage networked computers. This is born out by
Microsoft itself at this page:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pnppwr/wmi/WMI-intro.mspx

Note that also according to that site, "Windows Management
Instrumentation" (WMI) *is* an implementation of WBEM for Microsoft
Windows operating systems; when you talk about WMI, you are referring to
MS's implementation of WBEM for Windows.

*HOWEVER*..... WBEM is also used by at least one PC Health module for
providing system information, the individual components of PC Health in
Windows Millennium being:

1. Help and Support (which includes Assisted Support)
2. Automatic Update
3. System File Protection
4. System Restore.

According to this (found, I forget where):

"Microsoft plans to include CIM (note from John Corliss: CIM is an
acronym for 'Common Information Model' - see the definition of WBEM
further on down in this post for more information about CIM) in the
upcoming consumer release of Windows, the Millennium Edition, for
customer support. When a user contacts a technician with a problem, the
technician can get information about that user's computer and
applications through CIM."

information via WBEM supplements the Remote Call Procedure (RCP) used by
MS's support technicians when you call them through "Assisted Support"
(the first component listed above.)

As an aside, an interesting transcript of an MS webcast overview of PC
Health in Millennium Edition is here:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2Fservicedesks%2Fwebcasts%2Fen%2Fwc052300%2Fwct052300.asp
(link may wrap)

One can see that the original goals were noble. However, experience has
shown the whole concept to be rife with security holes. Historically,
pretty much every aspect of PC Health has been attacked or exploited by
virus or Trojan writers, or other hackers.

But back to the main topic of my post:

I don't know if WBEM is used by any of the remaining PC Health
components and would appreciate some clarification about whether or not
this is the case. I would also be very interested in knowing what other
uses MS possibly had in mind for having the module installed by default.
Along those lines, check out this page:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/wmisdk/wmi/logging_wmi_activity.asp
(link may wrap)

If there's no system administrator for a free standing computer running
Millennium Edition, then are there any logs created? Does Microsoft
consider all of its customers to be merely workstations on some huge
fictional network of its own design and control? If this is the case,
then you can count me out! I can and do run Windows Update manually.

On the other hand it appears that Help and Support's System Information
wouldn't work if I remove WBEM, so _there is the reason_ I was looking
for not to do so. In fact now that I think of it, somebody once told me
that I shouldn't remove Wmiexe.exe because this would be the case. Since
Beta 10 lists both WBEM and Wmiexe.exe as being separately removable via
its useage, I mistakenly thought that they were two entirely different
items.

Now I know differently.

As for the definition of WBEM itself, here are a couple of descriptions
of what it is from various internet sites:
_____________________________
What is WBEM?

Web Based Enterprise Management is an Industry initiative to provide
management of systems, networks, users and applications across multiple
vendor environments. WBEM simplifies system management, providing better
access to both software and hardware data that is readable by WBEM
compliant applications.
WBEM has been designed to be compatible with all the major existing
management protocols, including SNMP, DMI, and CMIP. WBEM is a DMTF
standard. Industry standards used in the WBEM initiative include:
_____________________________
What Is WBEM?

In 1996, BMC Software, Cisco Systems, Compaq Computer, Intel, and
Microsoft sponsored the Web-Based Enterprise Management (WBEM)
initiative, an effort to provide a unifying mechanism for describing and
sharing management information. Now more than 70 companies publicly
support WBEM, including Computer Associates, IBM/Tivoli, and HP.
Administrators of systems running on multiple platforms currently
have no easy way to obtain management data from their different
platforms. They must use individual APIs or a separate console for each
management application. However, WBEM can provide one interface to
multiple platforms because it's independent of the different languages,
execution environments, and user interfaces (UIs) those platforms use to
host management applications. WBEM defines a common mechanism for
sharing management information, but it doesn't dictate how vendors
implement management solutions. WBEM does not require the use of a
runtime environment or programming language model, nor does it mandate
the use of any particular management application, console, operating
system (OS), or graphical environment. WBEM provides a consistent view
of managed environments without locking customers in to one management
framework, protocol, or platform.
Two main goals motivated WBEM's founders to create this
cross-platform management technology. First, they needed to standardize
the publishing of management data. To achieve this goal, the Desktop
Management Task Force (DMTF) adopted a standardized data model called
the Common Information Model (CIM) in 1997. CIM is an object-oriented
schema for describing a system's management objects. It offers one
extensible data description mechanism for all enterprise systems,
network devices, and other management tools such as applications,
peripherals, and databases. CIM supports data inheritance and
associations and is independent of any execution environment or
programming language model. You can use CIM to describe objects that you
implement in Java, distributed component object model (DCOM), Common
Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA), or any other object environment.
Second, WBEM's founders needed a standard method for accessing
management information. Previously, administrators had to use customized
API calls and software designed specifically for each environment that
they wanted to access management data from. WBEM provides one method for
accessing management data that originates from disparate sources.
Figure A (http://www.win2000mag.com/Files/3568/Figure_01.html) shows
the general WBEM architecture. The bottom of Figure A shows various
sources of management data that WBEM can use, including Windows
Management Interface (WMI), Desktop Management Interface (DMI), and
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). The next level shows the CIM
Object Provider, which acts as a translation layer for the CIM Object
Manager (CIMOM). The CIMOM handles the interactions between CIM,
management applications, and the CIM Object Provider. In addition, the
CIMOM handles security, event registration, and notification services.
At the top of Figure A, Management Application includes any application
that uses management data to provide value to users, such as a central
management console or a central management data repository.
The original WBEM specification proposed that HyperMedia Management
Protocol (HMMP) serve as the standard protocol for publishing and
accessing data. Although HMMP is part of the WBEM specification at press
time, I expect WBEM organizers to get rid of HMMP in the near future and
adopt Extensible Markup Language (XML) instead. (For the latest
information about WBEM, visit http://wbem.freerange.com.)



--
Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> I'm only interested in getting information
> and advice from this group.

Something which I now have no intention of supplying. IMO from reading
this thread it would appear that you could be the one with the ego
problem.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:
>
>>> Am I missing something? 80)>
>>
>> Yes. You quite clearly haven't read any of his posts.
>
> No, I HAVE read the post he made to this thread. That's all that's
> important to me. I couldn't care about his posting history. As I
> mentioned in another post, I'm only interested in getting information
> and advice from this group, not in engaging in ego wars.
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:

>> I'm only interested in getting information
>> and advice from this group.
>
> Something which I now have no intention of supplying.

Well, I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, but that's your right of course.
Life will go on for me though.

> IMO from reading this thread it would appear that
> you could be the one with the ego problem.

Hey Mike, I said (and I cut and paste) "I'm only interested in getting
information and advice from this group, *not in engaging in ego wars.*"

On the other hand, I didn't realize that the individual who posted under
"anonymous" has been a problem in this group. Shane has now pointed this
out to me.

Still, the main problem I'm having at this point is that I can't seem to
get any discussion of the original topic going.

--
Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

John, you may not be interested in any of his other posts, but there's a
good chance that, if those who do know what they're talking about here, let
him get away with his blitz of dreadful advice unopposed, many of the less
savvy users here will believe that he is *a computer repairman* and
therefore he does know what he's talking about. There isn't any point
challenging him as he appears to know so little as to not expand the threads
to which he is replying and therefore does not even know there are replies.

The people ridiculing him (what does that mean anyway: pointing out that he
is ridiculous? He is) have been posting good and expert advice here on an
almost daily basis for several years and it's probably safe to say they care
that those who come here for help are not misled by someone who is either a
mischievous and inexpert child, a dishonest fool, or mentally ill.

Experience supports the conclusion that, if this person ever sees the
replies, he will defend his bilge regardless. In almost every post he adds
*I am comp repairman* or variation thereon. Have you ever heard the Firesign
Theatre's parody of a political advertisement in which the politcian ends
with *....and you can believe me, because I never lie, and I'm always
right.......*? This guy is of a breed we've seen here over and over. He's
not welcome.


Shane


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:eRkFOcdDFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Richard G. Harper wrote:
>> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does
>> not.
>
> Yes... yes.... great. Since you're an MVP, I have no doubt that you do.
> That's not the issue.
>
>> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other
>> couple dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I
>> am talking about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with
>> network interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other
>> threads is equally laughable.
>
> Sure, but Richard, not only did you completely clip out my laboriously
> composed effort to steer the thread back to its original topic (which I
> was very much hoping you would discuss and critique), you've also
> converted the intent of this thread from solving my problem into being
> basically a discussion of whether or not "anonymous" had a right to post a
> reply.
>
> In fact, the conservative advice he gave (basically to leave WBEM alone)
> ultimately turned out to be correct as far as I can tell (since doing so
> would remove System Information functionality.) On the other hand, he may
> be wrong but nobody so far has discussed the merits of *removing* WBEM.
>
> I know that I could simply remove it and if it doesn't work out, reinstall
> it, BUT I personally don't know if that process might cause any unforseen
> problems based on whether or not modification of WBEM by one of the many
> system updates has occurred. Thus, there are actually *two* reasons for me
> not to remove WBEM.
>
> Let's get this straight: I have absolutely NO interest in any flame wars.
> I came here looking for advice and I welcome replies from *anybody* - not
> just from MVPs. The whole idea of usenet is to openly *and courteously*
> discuss ideas, so let's allow that to happen. I don't have time for parlor
> games or turf wars.
>
> Now, can we PLEASE get back to my original question?
>
> --
> Thanks and regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:

> John, you may not be interested in any of his other posts, but there's a
> good chance that, if those who do know what they're talking about here, let
> him get away with his blitz of dreadful advice unopposed, many of the less
> savvy users here will believe that he is *a computer repairman* and
> therefore he does know what he's talking about. There isn't any point
> challenging him as he appears to know so little as to not expand the threads
> to which he is replying and therefore does not even know there are replies.

Well, that makes sense to me. However, of course I usually don't review
a person's posting history before replying so I had no idea.

> The people ridiculing him (what does that mean anyway: pointing out that he
> is ridiculous? He is) have been posting good and expert advice here on an
> almost daily basis for several years and it's probably safe to say they care
> that those who come here for help are not misled by someone who is either a
> mischievous and inexpert child, a dishonest fool, or mentally ill.
>
> Experience supports the conclusion that, if this person ever sees the
> replies, he will defend his bilge regardless. In almost every post he adds
> *I am comp repairman* or variation thereon. Have you ever heard the Firesign
> Theatre's parody of a political advertisement in which the politcian ends
> with *....and you can believe me, because I never lie, and I'm always
> right.......*?

Heh. Yes, I have.

> This guy is of a breed we've seen here over and over. He's
> not welcome.

All right. Point made.

--
Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

John,

Don't misunderstand me, this particular anonymous may never have posted here
before the last few days. Although the style is reminiscent. This person
appears to have chanced upon Microsoft's <appalling> web-based access to
these newsgroups, started new threads <as opposed to replying to> in
response to a no. of posts and it remains to be seen whether we'll ever hear
from him again.

I would forgive his bad advice and credit him with trying to help, were it
not for the claiming expertise when he gives the appearance of someone who's
been using computers for about two weeks.

You, otoh, seem like an honest man who's prepared to stand up for the little
guy and for that I salute you.

Now I'm going to take off my shoes and learn to play the flute.


Shane


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:OD28%235dDFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Shane wrote:
>
>> John, you may not be interested in any of his other posts, but there's a
>> good chance that, if those who do know what they're talking about here,
>> let him get away with his blitz of dreadful advice unopposed, many of the
>> less savvy users here will believe that he is *a computer repairman* and
>> therefore he does know what he's talking about. There isn't any point
>> challenging him as he appears to know so little as to not expand the
>> threads to which he is replying and therefore does not even know there
>> are replies.
>
> Well, that makes sense to me. However, of course I usually don't review a
> person's posting history before replying so I had no idea.
>
>> The people ridiculing him (what does that mean anyway: pointing out that
>> he is ridiculous? He is) have been posting good and expert advice here on
>> an almost daily basis for several years and it's probably safe to say
>> they care that those who come here for help are not misled by someone who
>> is either a mischievous and inexpert child, a dishonest fool, or mentally
>> ill.
>>
>> Experience supports the conclusion that, if this person ever sees the
>> replies, he will defend his bilge regardless. In almost every post he
>> adds *I am comp repairman* or variation thereon. Have you ever heard the
>> Firesign Theatre's parody of a political advertisement in which the
>> politcian ends with *....and you can believe me, because I never lie, and
>> I'm always right.......*?
>
> Heh. Yes, I have.
>
>> This guy is of a breed we've seen here over and over. He's not welcome.
>
> All right. Point made.
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Yeah - I agree with everyone else. Leave it the heck alone.

Happy? 🙂

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:eRkFOcdDFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> Now, can we PLEASE get back to my original question?
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Apology accepted, and thank you for offering it.

But I still say leave well enough alone. <VBG>

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23G6UuBeDFHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard G. Harper wrote:
>
>> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does
>> not.
>>
>> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other
>> couple dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I
>> am talking about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with
>> network interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other
>> threads is equally laughable.
>>
>
> Richard my apologies for my other reply to this post. I didn't understand
> that "anonymous" has been a problem in this group.
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> Apology accepted, and thank you for offering it.
>
> But I still say leave well enough alone. <VBG>

In the end, that's what I've chosen to do.

I've run without WBEM before (in fact on the current install of my OS)
and depended on the excellent freeware program AIDA (now called
"Everest" -
http://www.lavalys.com/products/overview.php?pid=1&lang=en&pageid=1)to
provide me with system information. In those days, I never installed
system updates, but since then I reinstalled WBEM and have gotten my
computer up to date with all the system updates for ME that are
available. As a result, there is a slight chance that removing WBEM at
this point would cause unpredictable problems.

I guess after looking over my long posts I just wanted to know if WBEM
was used by Automatic Update, System File Protection or System Restore
because I rely on the latter two and perhaps the first one, even if I do
update manually. But if I'm not going to get the answer in this group,
then that's simply the way it is. That doesn't reflect in any negative
way on this group by any means since the answer is probably very
difficult to arrive at. Regardless, guess I'll keep looking elsewhere.

Thanks anyway.

--
Regards from John Corliss