I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done. It
does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done. Is there
something I can set -- perhaps in the registry -- that will
automatically exit it when done?

--
David E. Ross
"A Message to Those Who Are Not Vaccinated"
See my <http://www.rossde.com/index.html#vaccine>.

"David E. Ross" <not_me@not_there.invalid> wrote:

> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done. It
> does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done. Is there
> something I can set -- perhaps in the registry -- that will
> automatically exit it when done?

Unlikely the program has a registry entry to kill on GUI exit when its
config screens have no such option.

Instead of running eraser.exe (or whatever is its executable), call
eraser.exe from a .bat (batch) file. Do something like:

@echo off
cls
<path>eraser.exe
echo Hit any key to terminate Eraser ...
pause > nul
taskkill.exe /im eraser.exe /f
exit

If <path> has any spaces, you'll have to double-quote the command line
to load eraser. If eraser.exe does not immediately return status, the
following echo and pause commands are not needed. They are only there
if eraser.exe immediately returns status when it is loaded instead of
waiting until it exits.

A command shell loads which runs eraser.exe. When eraser.exe unloads,
the echo and pause commands are waiting in the command shell for you to
hit a key (when the command shell's window has focus). The taskkill
command kills any process with image name (/im) of eraser.exe, and does
a forced kill (/f).

Otherwise, you could go ask in their forums on help with that specific
program instead of canvassing a community not focused on that product,
like at:

https://eraser.heidi.ie/forum/
(assuming Eraser is that one)

On 10/10/2021 6:11 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done. It
> does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done. Is there
> something I can set -- perhaps in the registry -- that will
> automatically exit it when done?
>
Would this work in a bat?

run following (one line cmd)
- wmic path Win32_PerfFormattedData_PerfProc_Process get
Name,PercentProcessorTime | FIND "ERASER" > save to file.txt

Extract CPU time to a variable1
TIMEOUT x > NUL
repeat and compare time to variable1
If change repeat
If no c change TASKKILL /IM "Eraser.exe" </F or /T as needed>

David,

> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done.

Instead of going for a solution that will force-kill the program, why not
put some time into investigating /why/ it doesn't terminate (it might be for
a good reason).

Who knows, maybe it can be fixed by using the right commandline switch.

Also, next time try to include where you got the program from (URL), as now
we can't even check what its supposed to do. :-|

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> David,
>
>> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done.
>
> Instead of going for a solution that will force-kill the program, why not
> put some time into investigating /why/ it doesn't terminate (it might be for
> a good reason).
>
> Who knows, maybe it can be fixed by using the right commandline switch.

https://eraser.heidi.ie/creating-tasks/
https://eraser.heidi.ie/creating-recurring-tasks/

The OP obviously doesn't give a gnat's fart about running erasure jobs
on a schedule, and just want to use the program interactively. An
interactive program, or one only used interactively, does not need to be
constantly running in the background.

Vanguard,

> The OP obviously doesn't give a gnat's fart about running erasure
> jobs on a schedule,

Who said he would be ? Not me, not the OP. You're the only one.

> and just want to use the program interactively.

The OP has not said anything about his program being interactive or not.

> An interactive program, or one only used interactively, does not need
> to be constantly running in the background.

Who has said anything about "running in the background" ? Again, only you.

> https://eraser.heidi.ie/

How do you know that that is the one the OP uses ? He hasn't mentioned it.

In short, you have made a number of conclusions you have no basis for nor
have you bothered to support them in any way.

To be blunt about it, have I wronged you somehow ? 'Cause all of it seems
to be directed at me (not a single iota of info for the OP). If so, what
did I do ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 10/11/2021 4:17 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Vanguard,
>
>> The OP obviously doesn't give a gnat's fart about running erasure
>> jobs on a schedule,
>
> Who said he would be ? Not me, not the OP. You're the only one.
>
>> and just want to use the program interactively.
>
> The OP has not said anything about his program being interactive or not.
>
>> An interactive program, or one only used interactively, does not need
>> to be constantly running in the background.
>
> Who has said anything about "running in the background" ? Again, only you.
>
>> https://eraser.heidi.ie/
>
> How do you know that that is the one the OP uses ? He hasn't mentioned it.
>
> In short, you have made a number of conclusions you have no basis for nor
> have you bothered to support them in any way.
>
> To be blunt about it, have I wronged you somehow ? 'Cause all of it seems
> to be directed at me (not a single iota of info for the OP). If so, what
> did I do ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
Actually, I identified the application as Eraser. Note that I
capitalized the name. Yes, it is from <http://eraser.heidi.ie/>. I am
now using version 6.2.0.2992. There seems to be a problem with version
6.2.0.2993, which I have reported to the developer.

Yes, I use it only interactively. When I am through with a file that
contains sensitive data (e.g., a bank statement) or a folder containing
several such files, I want to erase them immediately and not on some
future schedule. Usually, the files are uniquely named, which makes a
regular erasing schedule complicated.

--
David E. Ross
"A Message to Those Who Are Not Vaccinated"
See my <http://www.rossde.com/index.html#vaccine>.

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> Vanguard,
>
>> The OP obviously doesn't give a gnat's fart about running erasure
>> jobs on a schedule,
>
> Who said he would be ? Not me, not the OP. You're the only one.

"investigating /why/ it doesn't terminate".

That was you. You opened the door to investigate why the program
doesn't terminate when its GUI is closed.

I investigated *as you asked*.

>> and just want to use the program interactively.
>
> The OP has not said anything about his program being interactive or
> not.

Yes, he did.

"remains alive when it is done"
"does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done"

>> An interactive program, or one only used interactively, does not need
>> to be constantly running in the background.
>
> Who has said anything about "running in the background" ? Again,
> only you.

The OP said "automatically exit it when done". Well, if the process
doesn't exit when its GUI is closed, it is still running. Since the OP
has closed the GUI, and the process is still running, then the process
in the background (aka the process is still resident).

>> https://eraser.heidi.ie/
>
> How do you know that that is the one the OP uses ? He hasn't
> mentioned it.

I made a guess, but it's based on experience when users only say
"Eraser". Looks like I'm not alone in what is referenced when just
"eraser" is mentioned; see:

https://www.google.com/search?q=eraser

If someone says they are running DOS, a good guess is they mean
MS/IBM-DOS, not Seattle DOS, DOSbox, FreeDOS, 4DOS, or some other DOS.

> In short, you have made a number of conclusions you have no basis for
> nor have you bothered to support them in any way.

So did you.

"instead of going for a solution that will force-kill the program"
The OP never stated that's how he wants to terminate the program. That
was your assumption.

"maybe it can be fixed by using the right commandline switch"
Since you are adamant that the program is yet unknown, it was your
assumption that the unknown program has a CLI (command-line interface).

> To be blunt about it, have I wronged you somehow ? 'Cause all of it seems
> to be directed at me (not a single iota of info for the OP). If so, what
> did I do ?

Just one reply is "all of it seems to be directed at me"? You said to
investigate. I did. You did not.

"not a single iota of info for the OP"
The article referenced was not written by me. It hints on why the
program does not exit on close of its GUI.

Review my first reply to you again. Just where did I attack you?
You seem a bit touchy today.

David,

> Actually, I identified the application as Eraser. Note that I
> capitalized the name. Yes, it is from <http://eraser.heidi.ie/>.
> I am now using version 6.2.0.2992.

Thank you for telling us. Knowing exactly what program is used is rather
important ...

> There seems to be a problem with version
> 6.2.0.2993, which I have reported to the developer.

.... for exactly these kind of reasons. Besides us being able to look at
the docs of it I mean.

(though a quick google for the "won't close" problem doesn't turn anything
up - yet)

> Yes, I use it only interactively.

Ok. I rejected the "its used interactive" as a forgone conclusion, as it
was well possible that you only needed to set it up, and than start it (thru
a shortcut) with the name of the setup (.ini) file (like you can do with
backup programs for example).

But does that mean that you actually try to close the program (by its close
button) and that it refuses to do so ? If so it would have been good to
have that included in your initial message, as it rather strongly points at
a problem with the program itself, instead of to one with how you wanted to
use it.

> Usually, the files are uniquely named, which makes a
> regular erasing schedule complicated.

There are a few possibilities in that direction. Like excluding the files
you want to keep. Or only select the files that have been created today.
Maybe even on specific file attributes. Though all of that depends on
whats also written into that folder.

If those files themselves have a specific internal make-up than it should
also be possible to write some kind of (power shell?) script to identify
them and write their names into a to-be-deleted textfile (which than,
possibly, can be fed to the Eraser program).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 10/11/2021 11:11 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 4:17 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Vanguard,
>>
>>> The OP obviously doesn't give a gnat's fart about running erasure
>>> jobs on a schedule,
>>
>> Who said he would be ? Not me, not the OP. You're the only one.
>>
>>> and just want to use the program interactively.
>>
>> The OP has not said anything about his program being interactive or not.
>>
>>> An interactive program, or one only used interactively, does not need
>>> to be constantly running in the background.
>>
>> Who has said anything about "running in the background" ? Again, only you.
>>
>>> https://eraser.heidi.ie/
>>
>> How do you know that that is the one the OP uses ? He hasn't mentioned it.
>>
>> In short, you have made a number of conclusions you have no basis for nor
>> have you bothered to support them in any way.
>>
>> To be blunt about it, have I wronged you somehow ? 'Cause all of it seems
>> to be directed at me (not a single iota of info for the OP). If so, what
>> did I do ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>>
>>
> Actually, I identified the application as Eraser. Note that I
> capitalized the name. Yes, it is from <http://eraser.heidi.ie/>. I am
> now using version 6.2.0.2992. There seems to be a problem with version
> 6.2.0.2993, which I have reported to the developer.
>
> Yes, I use it only interactively. When I am through with a file that
> contains sensitive data (e.g., a bank statement) or a folder containing
> several such files, I want to erase them immediately and not on some
> future schedule. Usually, the files are uniquely named, which makes a
> regular erasing schedule complicated.
>

If Eraser leaves the file name active while it removes its data then a
batch could use IF EXIST <filename> as a signal that Eraser has finished.

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> David,
>
>> Yes, I use it only interactively.
>
> But does that mean that you actually try to close the program (by its close
> button) and that it refuses to do so ?

I have seen many programs that Close (or using the "X" at the top right
of the window) only closes the GUI, and not exit the program. Sometimes
there is a tray icon, and you can right-click it, or open its GUI (tray
window) to find an Exit option. Since the OP is reporting bugs, I
would've expected he'd have checked for Exit in a tray icon.

Barring no Exit function anywhere, or config that says to Exit on GUI
close, force-kill is the only choice that comes to mind.

More directed to the OP ...

David mentions reporting a bug. The disappearance of an Exit function
seems more than just a bug, especially for a 0.0.0.0001 incremental
version change. Maybe the OP meant the Exit stopped working rather than
there was no Exit function. I couldn't find a change log page detailing
what changed in 6.2.0.2993. I see another user
(https://eraser.heidi.ie/forum/threads/change-log.17962/) was also
trying to find a change log. I didn't find a thread in their forums
reporting the bug for the 2993 build, so perhaps he used a web form to
open a trouble ticket, like near the bottom of https://www.heidi.ie/.

Eraser is hosted at https://sourceforge.net/projects/eraser/, but
there's no support page there (it points back to the forums). The
project's home page mentions a change for 6.2.0.2993, but doesn't look
to affect a feature change, like removing an Exit function:

https://sourceforge.net/p/eraser/code/2993/
(changes for copyright date range)

VanguardLH,

>>> The OP obviously doesn't give a gnat's fart about running erasure
>>> jobs on a schedule,
>>
>> Who said he would be ? Not me, not the OP. You're the only one.
>
> "investigating /why/ it doesn't terminate".
>
> That was you. You opened the door to investigate why the program
> doesn't terminate when its GUI is closed.

Kid, the subject was how you could know that the OP "doesn't give a gnat's
fart about running erasure jobs on a schedule". Your blatant attempt at
changing the subject to "investigating" and than acting as if that was what
I was talking about just makes you look like an ass.

>> The OP has not said anything about his program being interactive
>> or not.
>
> Yes, he did.
>
> "remains alive when it is done"
> "does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done"

Nope, he didn't. Those two could also have applied to a commandline
program, or a GUI program which needs to be configured and than does the
rest by itself.

It looks like you've found one match, and than stopped to consider further
possibilities.

> The OP said "automatically exit it when done". Well, if the
> process doesn't exit when its GUI is closed, it is still running.

Same here. You already concluded that it /had/ to be a GUI program, and
stopped thinking there. And you also again considered just a single
possibility for it.

I saw a few possibilities, the first of which was that the OP wanted a GUI
program automatically closed after it had done its job. Hence my
"commandline switch" suggestion. The second one that it was a console or
GUI program that somehow got stuck.

Both, or rather all three possibilities where covered by my "investigate
/why/" suggestion.

> I made a guess, but it's based on experience when users only
> say "Eraser".

I've learned not to do that, as it more often than not it has shown itself
to be a waste of time.

> "instead of going for a solution that will force-kill the program"
> The OP never stated that's how he wants to terminate the program.
> That was your assumption.

Nope again. I was talking about you and Zaid036 suggesting to the OP to use
it, and why I thought he should be carefull with it.

> "maybe it can be fixed by using the right commandline switch"
> Since you are adamant that the program is yet unknown, it was
> your assumption that the unknown program has a CLI (command-line
> interface).

And nope again. Both GUI and commandline programs can accept whats called
"commandline arguments". My suggestion was given with that in mind.

> Just one reply is "all of it seems to be directed at me"?
....
> Review my first reply to you again. Just where did I attack you?

:-) Kid, that reply was filled with stuff that didn't even /touch/ what I
said, and all of it was crap you either "knew" about the OP or grabbed outof
thin air. What did you think to accomplish there ?

> You said to investigate. I did.

You did ? On the basis on what ? All you've done is guess your ass off.

> "not a single iota of info for the OP"
> The article referenced was not written by me. It hints on why
> the program does not exit on close of its GUI.

Ah yes. First saying that the OP doesn't care a gnats ass about scheduled
jobs, and than post two links that are all about such scheduled jobs -
without /any/ indication what in them might be the answer to the OPs riddle
ofcourse.

And by the way, I just took a peek at both links. There is nothing in there
that mentions the OPs problem, nor anything related to it. You think
different ? Quote it. I dare you.

Just don't forget to make clear how you think its of consequence to the OPs
problem.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> VanguardLH,
>
>>>> The OP obviously doesn't give a gnat's fart about running erasure
>>>> jobs on a schedule,
>>>
>>> Who said he would be ? Not me, not the OP. You're the only one.
>>
>> "investigating /why/ it doesn't terminate".
>>
>> That was you. You opened the door to investigate why the program
>> doesn't terminate when its GUI is closed.
>
> Kid, the subject was how you could know that the OP "doesn't give a
> gnat's fart about running erasure jobs on a schedule". Your blatant
> attempt at changing the subject to "investigating" and than acting as
> if that was what I was talking about just makes you look like an ass.

Oh, I see, you attack when anyone other than the OP replies to your
reply. Too bad. Usenet is not your property. Or maybe you just like
stalking me since this seems to be your favorite response to me.

Vanguard,

>> But does that mean that you actually try to close the program (by its
>> close
>> button) and that it refuses to do so ?
>
> I have seen many programs that Close (or using the "X" at the top right
> of the window) only closes the GUI, and not exit the program.

True. But by now you know which program the OP uses. Has your information
got anything to do with it ? For some reason I don't think so.

So, why did you bring it up ?

> Barring no Exit function anywhere, or config that says to Exit on GUI
> close, force-kill is the only choice that comes to mind.

Again making a string of assumptions that might-or-might-not have anything
to do with the OPs situation. Don't you ever get tired of that ?

> The disappearance of an Exit function seems more than just a bug,

Does it now ? I can think of a few different reasons why an exit button
doesn't work - or rather, doesn't /seem/ to work. Assuming that
C{something} is used, just an "=" instead of an "==" in an "if".

> More directed to the OP ...
....
> Maybe the OP meant the Exit stopped working rather than
> there was no Exit function.

How would the OP be able to know that there would be an "exit function" or
not ?

And whats, according to you, the difference between "no Exit function" and
"the Exit stopped working" ? As far as I can tell the latter can cause the
former, meaning that both of them can be true at the same time. :-)

But, as long as you are talking to him, *why don't you ask him*.

But you could ofcourse have read both OPs post, and read what he actually
said (in the first one) : "It does not have a user-interface setting to
exit when done". Looking at that, what makes you think that he was talking
about the exit button at all ?

IOW, Maybe all he was complaining about was the absense of a checkmark.

@OP:
Could it be that the GUIs exit button works as expected, and all you are
talking about is perhaps just something like a "close on done" checkmark
somewhere ?

In that case there is nothing we can do to help you I'm afraid. Though
luckily you seem to have already solved your problem by using the next
version (did it?).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Vanguard,

> Oh, I see, you attack when anyone other than the OP replies to
> your reply.

To use your own words, "Just where did I attack you?" ?

And I see you're trying to twist everything to your own benefit again. I
replied to your post /which had my name at the top/ and made mince-meat of
everything you said in there. And pardon me, but blundering around /that/
much is a bit too much of an coincidence.

So, I wondered if it was done on purpose. But if so, why ? Hence the
question.

Yes, I'm a bit naive. I rather ask you and have a /chance/ to an honest
answer. Alas ...

> Or maybe you just like stalking me since this seems to be
> your favorite response to me.

:-) Kid, look at yourself. *you* started talking to me. Not the other way
around. And now suddenly *I'm* the one stalking /you/ ? You're funny.
Not in a good way though.

Also, if you do not like that I do not agree with your bogus claims (for
which I most alway provide underbuilding) than maybe you should not be
making them to me ? Ever thought about that ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 10/10/2021 6:11 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done. It
> does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done. Is there
> something I can set -- perhaps in the registry -- that will
> automatically exit it when done?
>

Look for free replacement at
<https://techlog360.com/tools-securely-delete-files/>

Personally I would consider a batch with SDELETE since SysInternals is
very reliable.

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> Vanguard,
>
>>> But does that mean that you actually try to close the program (by
>>> its close button) and that it refuses to do so ?
>>
>> I have seen many programs that Close (or using the "X" at the top
>> right of the window) only closes the GUI, and not exit the program.
>
> True. But by now you know which program the OP uses. Has your
> information got anything to do with it ? For some reason I don't
> think so.
>
> So, why did you bring it up ?

I don't use Eraser. Appears neither do you. Else, either one of us
could've checked for a tray icon to see if a popup dialog or context
menu had an Exit function. The OP didn't mention there is a tray icon
or not, and, if so, if he checked for an Exit function there.

Remember the OP is reading replies, too. Not all replies to you are
only targeting you. I expect the OP will see them, too. In fact, you
did the same as I by using your "@OP:" line to address the remainder of
your article to the OP.

>> Barring no Exit function anywhere, or config that says to Exit on GUI
>> close, force-kill is the only choice that comes to mind.
>
> Again making a string of assumptions that might-or-might-not have anything
> to do with the OPs situation. Don't you ever get tired of that ?

Gee, look up "conditional". I would've thought you had some clue
regarding conditionals by doing some logic or programming.

>> Maybe the OP meant the Exit stopped working rather than there was no
>> Exit function.
>
> How would the OP be able to know that there would be an "exit
> function" or not ?

Um, he could look, especially after the above hint about the possibility
of a tray icon having an Exit function.

> And whats, according to you, the difference between "no Exit function"
> and "the Exit stopped working" ?

No Exit function: There is nothing labelled Exit, or similar, as a user
control in the program's, or its tray icon's, GUI. The OP already
mentioned there is no setting affording a choice to Exit on closing the
GUI. "Exit" cannot be found.

Exit stop working: There *is* an Exit control available to the user
either via the GUI or setting. Using that existing and visible control
fails to unload the program.

Didn't think I had to go into that much detail about "no exit function"
and "Exit not working".

> As far as I can tell the latter can cause the
> former, meaning that both of them can be true at the same time. :-)

If there is no Exit control presented to the user, just how could the
user use a non-existing control?

> But, as long as you are talking to him, *why don't you ask him*.

I did. You elided over the "More directed to the OP". Do you really
think the OP is somehow restricted to reading replies that specifically
reply to only his posts? He can read every post in this thread.

> But you could ofcourse have read both OPs post, and read what he
> actually said (in the first one) : "It does not have a
> user-interface setting to exit when done". Looking at that, what
> makes you think that he was talking about the exit button at all ?

A setting is not a visible object, like an Exit button or menu entry.
The program could have both a setting for exit on GUI close, and a
visible object to click on named "Exit". I suspect you're being
obstreperous in attempting to elicit the image of someone that doesn't
know the difference between a setting and a GUI object.

On 10/10/2021 3:11 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done. It
> does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done. Is there
> something I can set -- perhaps in the registry -- that will
> automatically exit it when done?

As noted earlier:
* I use Eraser 6.2.0.2992 from <http://eraser.heidi.ie/>.
* I only use it interactively.

Further information:

I use Eraser to provide secure removal of files in a manner to prevent
someone recovering those file through a forensic examination of my hard
drive. Such files include an unencrypted copy of the file containing my
passwords, downloaded financial statements that show account numbers,
and the spreadsheets I use when preparing my income tax returns.

I have a few applications that do indeed terminate when they complete
their tasks. I thought there might be some way to terminate Eraser
automatically after it has securely obliterated the files I wanted to
remove. I never indicated that the failure of Eraser to terminate is an
error. I merely thought it would be a handy feature. I am not
interested in complicated scripts to achieve that feature.

Eraser does not have a menu containing Exit, but its window does have an
X in the upper-right corner to exit. Yes, when Eraser is active, it has
an icon in the notification area (tray). (I cannot understand why
Microsoft insisted on changing the terminology from one syllable to
eight syllables.) I can right-click on that icon and select "Exit
Eraser".

The error in Eraser 6.2.0.2993 that I reported to the developer is
unrelated to this newsgroup thread. The error is that I am unable to
get Eraser to appear in the pull-down context menus for files and
folders, a feature described in Eraser's Settings window as "Integrate
Eraser into Windows Explorer". This is a feature that worked in many
Eraser versions prior to 6.2.0.2993. I reverted back to 6.2.0.2992
because that is a feature I use frequently.

--
David E. Ross
"A Message to Those Who Are Not Vaccinated"
See my <http://www.rossde.com/index.html#vaccine>.

"David E. Ross" <not_me@not_there.invalid> wrote:

> David E. Ross wrote:
>
>> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done.
>> It does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done. Is
>> there something I can set -- perhaps in the registry -- that will
>> automatically exit it when done?
>
> As noted earlier:
> * I use Eraser 6.2.0.2992 from <http://eraser.heidi.ie/>.
> * I only use it interactively.
>
> Further information:
>
> I use Eraser to provide secure removal of files in a manner to prevent
> someone recovering those file through a forensic examination of my hard
> drive. Such files include an unencrypted copy of the file containing my
> passwords, downloaded financial statements that show account numbers,
> and the spreadsheets I use when preparing my income tax returns.
>
> I have a few applications that do indeed terminate when they complete
> their tasks. I thought there might be some way to terminate Eraser
> automatically after it has securely obliterated the files I wanted to
> remove. I never indicated that the failure of Eraser to terminate is an
> error. I merely thought it would be a handy feature. I am not
> interested in complicated scripts to achieve that feature.
>
> Eraser does not have a menu containing Exit, but its window does have an
> X in the upper-right corner to exit. Yes, when Eraser is active, it has
> an icon in the notification area (tray). (I cannot understand why
> Microsoft insisted on changing the terminology from one syllable to
> eight syllables.) I can right-click on that icon and select "Exit
> Eraser".
>
> The error in Eraser 6.2.0.2993 that I reported to the developer is
> unrelated to this newsgroup thread. The error is that I am unable to
> get Eraser to appear in the pull-down context menus for files and
> folders, a feature described in Eraser's Settings window as "Integrate
> Eraser into Windows Explorer". This is a feature that worked in many
> Eraser versions prior to 6.2.0.2993. I reverted back to 6.2.0.2992
> because that is a feature I use frequently.

Thanks for the update.

Eraser (capitalized "E") from your description was likely to be Heidi's
tool. While I don't currently use it, I've seen many users describe
their use of it. I did use it many years ago (so many that I can't
remember how long ago when I stopped, or how it [mis]behaved, and other
tools were just as effective). Eraser still supports erasure methods
that are irrelevant today, but users get misled into thinking 35 passes
is better than 2 or 3 (zeroes, ones, random). No one today is still
using MFM or RLL encoded hard disks where the Gutmann scheme was
applicable. Plus, extreme erasure when discarding, transfering, losing,
or hacking a hard disk isn't an issue except by the extreme paranoid or
malignant folks. Those that acquire access to the hard disk won't have
an electron microscopes ($80K to $10M, $254K average) dedicated solely
for residual magnetic forensics. Those that can afford the forensics
hardware also have other easier and cheaper ways to get at your data,
and don't even need physical access to your HDD.

https://www.sans.org/blog/overwriting-hard-drive-data/
"In many instances, using a MFM [magnetic force microscope aka
electronic microsope] to determine the prior value written to the hard
drive was less successful than a simple coin toss."
"Although there is a good chance of recovery for any individual bit from
a drive, the chances of recovery of any amount of data from a drive
using an electron microscope are negligible."

Back when this interested me, 2 passes of writing all 1's and then
writing all 0's, or writing alternating bits (01010101) following by
reversal (10101010), so all bits got their state toggled, and following
with a random series of bits was more than sufficient to erase the data
beyond the ability of hardware forensics to recover.

Some HDDs even have their own internal data sanitization feature, aka
SecureErase, in their firmware which has more intimate access to the
platters than does software running under an OS. The problem was
finding a generic tool that will initiate SecureErase by the HDD's
firmware for all brands and models. When I last looked into this years
ago, you needed the tool specifically from the HDD maker to initiate
SecureErase. Since then more software tools have added a SecureErase
function (e.g., partedmagic.com/secure-erase/), but you'd have to check
if it works with your devices. I haven't checked if SecureErase became
a standard interface at the device usable by any software tool.
However, SecureErase is destructive across all of the storage in an HDD
or SDD, so you use it when you intend to discard the device, not to
selectively overwrite portions of its storage.

https://www.delkin.com/blog/understanding-secure-erase-features/

I find a sledgehammer is more than sufficient to render the storage
media unrecoverable, I fear no one will use an electron microscope on
the platter fragments, and I do nothing in creating or storing data that
the NSA cannot find easier through other less expensive methods.

That you use Eraser only interactively was likely from your description.

I mentioned that some programs use their tray icon to provide the Exit
function. Many users expect closing the GUI also exits (unloads) the
process. I also prefer a user-configurable option to exit a program on
its GUI close instead of being nuisanced with yet another action to
actually exit the program. Windows, and Linux, users expect unloading
the GUI also exits the program, so closing the GUI and then having to
follow with an Exit option in a tray icon is unexpected behavior. It's
also what confuses Android users about apps that remain backgrounded
when closed instead of the apps exiting.

When I visited the Heidi forums, I remember seeing someone mention a
defect in the shell extension for Eraser on file and folder objects
shown in Windows/File Explorer.

https://eraser.heidi.ie/forum/threads/eraser-and-windows-explorer.17968/

DeRoss there must be David E. Ross here. I saw it, but skipped it since
it wasn't about an absent or obtuse Exit function.

Off-topic: If you do go back to the 2993 build, or even with the 2992
or any build, you can use Nirsoft's ShellEx Viewer tool
(https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/shexview.html) to see what shell
extensions have been defined (in the registry). Some uninstallers
neglect to delete their shell extension which can hang or crash
Explorer. ShellExView will let you see if a ShellEx is still defined,
but effectively orphaned by an uninstall leaving invalid registry
entries. These orphaned registry entries is one of the few times
when using registry cleaners will help solve a problem: they can
detect orphaned registry entries.

So, you have found the Exit function buried in Eraser's tray icon. Is
the tray icon still visible when Eraser's main GUI window is displayed?
If so, you can skip closing the GUI window, and directly use the tray
icon's Exit function.

You might want to open a forum discussion suggesting an RFE (Request For
Enhancement) to add a user configurable setting to exit Eraser on close
of its GUI, and probably not bother even showing its tray icon for a
user that will be using Eraser only interactively. I did a search in
their forums on "exit" on titles only (too many hits if content was
included), and no one has yet opened a thread requesting a change in
behavior for exiting the program, like an "Exit on close" setting.

In addition, using Eraser's shell integration loads Eraser, as expected,
but also loads its tray icon. That is, once you initiate use of Eraser
via its shell integration into Explorer, Eraser remains backgrounded
until you use Exit in its tray icon.

https://eraser.heidi.ie/forum/threads/notification-icon-persists.12257/#post-36049

Seems the author favors leaving Eraser resident after use, like to
permit its scheduled operations, rather than allowing configuration to
using Eraser only interactively. Another possibility is to leave Eraser
running after a task has completed to let the user view the log,
especially to find errors in the task. However, an option "Show log on
errors" would suffice to let users review the log when errors happen.
Leaving the tray icon loaded hence leaving Eraser running might've been
one of its rude behaviors that had me dump Eraser eons ago. The Heidi
Eraser tool has been around 18 years.

Well, you discovered the Exit function in Eraser's tray icon. That
should be a sufficient resolution for now since you don't want to get
into scripting another solution or otherwise overcoming Eraser not
explicitly designed nor configurable for interactive-only use.

Vanguard,

>> So, why did you bring it up ?
>
> I don't use Eraser. Appears neither do you.
[snip]

Thats not in any way an answer to the question I posted and you quoted.

> The OP didn't mention there is a tray icon or not

Again, you are the only one who ever talked about that /towards me/. And
you didn't even /try/ to confirm anything by asking the OP about it.

> Remember the OP is reading replies, too.

That might be. But than /maybe/ you should than talk to him in the first
person, not the "he isn't here" third person form. Remember saying "Maybe
the OP meant". I don't know about you, but that definitily doesn't look
like you where adressing him there.

> In fact, you did the same as I by using your "@OP:" line to address the
> remainder of your article to the OP.

No, I definitily didn't "do the same". I talked /to/ the OP, inviting him
to respond. You ? You just talked /about/ him.

>> Again making a string of assumptions that might-or-might-not have
>> anything
>> to do with the OPs situation. Don't you ever get tired of that ?
>
> Gee, look up "conditional".

Than I suggest you look up "far fetched", "not underbuild" as well as
"ignoring available sources of information".

>> How would the OP be able to know that there would be an "exit
>> function" or not ?
>
> Um, he could look, especially after the above hint about the
> possibility of a tray icon having an Exit function.

Again, you are the /only/ one who has ever talked about the systray, and you
have done *zero* to check if the Eraser program actually has it. You
definitily have not tried to *ask the OP* about it.

Also, I don't think that the OP will appreciate the way you keep referring
to him in the third person, who's only job seems to be to fact-check
everything you say about his program - /after/ you already posted it as a
"possibility".

>> And whats, according to you, the difference between "no Exit function"
>> and "the Exit stopped working" ?
>
> No Exit function: There is nothing labelled Exit, or similar, as a user
> control in the program's, or its tray icon's, GUI.

Thanks for that explanation.

As you already know I program a bit, and there a "function" refers to a bit
of code. "Exit function" could refer to the code thats called as a result
of someone pressing the dialogs "X" (in the top-right), a "close" button or
even by the "taskkill" program when, on first try, it askes nicely (sends a
"wm_close" message to the program).

---------
By the way, did you notice ? I was not sure what your definition of
something was, so I asked. When you responded I thanked you, and in return
offered you my definition. Now we both know what the other means and can
keep it in mind, so we keep the level of confusion low. That is how it
/can/ work.
---------

>> As far as I can tell the latter can cause the former, meaning that both
>> of them can be true at the same time. :-)
>
> If there is no Exit control presented to the user, just how could the
> user use a non-existing control?

I mentioned that the phrase "exit function" means a bit more to me than it
does to you. Does that change anything for you ?

>> But, as long as you are talking to him, *why don't you ask him*.
>
> I did. You elided over the "More directed to the OP".

No, you didn't You still talked /about/ him, in the third person. You
never bothered to actually adress him as if he was part of our ... exchange
of thoughts.

> He can read every post in this thread.

Yes, I know. And I can't imagine that he enjoys the way you are talking
/about/ him, and are pretty-much using him to proof-read whatever you say to
everyone else, expecting him to opt-out of it.

>> But you could ofcourse have read both OPs post, and read what he
>> actually said (in the first one) : "It does not have a
>> user-interface setting to exit when done". Looking at that, what
>> makes you think that he was talking about the exit button at all ?
>
> A setting is not a visible object, like an Exit button or menu entry.

It isn't ? Than how do you see and/or change it ?

Besides, I already mentioned a checkmark, which /is/ a visible object. Just
like a set of radio-buttons, a "save the file here" collapsible folder-tree,
a date and/or time input field, or several other controls that are used to
show you what the current setting is and allow you to change it.

Funny though that you both skipped my mentioning of such a checkmark, and
also that you defined the word "setting" as something that simply could not
have a (tightly bound) physical aspect - even though you should have seen
such settings objects a few times in your lifetime on a PC.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
You can keep bullshitting, bluffing or whatever you think you are doing, or
you can start being acting nice. In the first case I will keep countering
it, in the second case I could perhaps become a worthwhile source of
information. Like the info I'm countering your claims with, but packaged
in a much more pallatable wrapper.

Not knowing everything is a fact of life. Heck, I'm /very/ sure that there
is *way* more I don't know than there is that I do know. Also, from what I
think I do know there is a good possibility that it has changed over time, I
have misremembered it or even simply did not have all the information when
coming to a certain conclusion.

Though when its When its pointed out to me (and onderbuild ofcourse) I tend
to graciously admit that I was wrong. And yes, that has happened to me
often enough, even within these newsgroups.

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:11:53 -0700, David E. Ross wrote:
> I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done. It
> does not have a user-interface setting to exit when done. Is there
> something I can set -- perhaps in the registry -- that will
> automatically exit it when done?

It's a software bug in Eraser side. It happens on my system too, when I
tested v6.2.0.2992. It not a problem in your system or any setting in your
system. The problem can't be fixed by other than the developer.

David,

> Further information:

Thank you. But alas, what you do there is just to confirm you are using the
program as intended. It doesn't add much, if anything, to the description
of problem you where experiencing.

The problem starts with your initial message :
[quote]
I have an application (Eraser) that remains alive when it is done. It does
not have a user-interface setting to exit when done.
[/quote]

I can read that in a few different ways, which makes it rather hard to give
you any kind of specific advice (why do you think my reply was that terse
:-) )

1) You click whatever "close" button there is, but the program doesn't
actually terminate (staying visible on the desktop or only present in the
task managers process list).

2) The program doesn't have /any/ kind of button or option to actually close
the program Would be odd, but possible.

3) You want the program to close itself when its done with whatever task you
gave it, but can't find an option to do so. (this is what your question
looks like, and what those "taskkill" suggestions probably where about)

4) You /have/ been able to find an "exit when done" option, but it doesn't
work as supposed.

5) The program tells you (one way or another) that it will self-terminate
after its done, but doesn't do so.

Looking back and (still ..) reading between the lines of your (and JJs)
posts I have to conclude that either #4 or #5 is what you where talking
about, and that a bug stopped it from actually functioning.

IOW, try to be /specific/ about the problem. Next time maybe something
like :

"My xxxx program [1] (should be closing itself / has an option to close
itself) when its done doing its things [2], but it doesn't actually do so.
How can I do to get it to work ?"

[1] you already got that one hammered down. :-)

[2] Yeah, I'm actually pretty vague there. /What/ it does there isn't
important. What it doesn't do afterwards is. :-)

And no, this is not ment to chew you out in any way. Far from it actually.
Just a (supposed to be) friendly reminder that the quality of our answers
are heavily dependant on the quality of the information you're giving us.

And just to drive that point home : did /any/ of us provide you with (even
just a hint to) a solution to your problem ? I don't think so. AFAICS
you decided on your own to download the next version and found that the
problem was gone.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser