SeDebugPrivilege Help

[Tristan]

Hey, I'm coding a program that requires me to set SeDebugPrivilege on itself.  It works fine on my system and not on others.  Some people receive the access denied error when they attempt to open the protected process.  I've been googling for a while and I've found a few different solutions, however none of them have worked.

I've tried having them make sure they're in the administrators group, they are.
I've tried adding them to the Debug Programs local permissions group, which they did successfully.

I've tried more things that I can't remember, none have worked. So does anybody know what may be the problem here?

The people getting the problem are mostly on Windows XP.  But I did see one having it on Vista.

[l)ragon]

vb6?

[brew]

vb6?

You're in the visual basic forum. I would assume so, yes.

[Yegg]

vb6?

You're in the visual basic forum. I would assume so, yes.

Ya, but there is also .NET. With this particular topic there may be a big difference between the two.

[Mystical]

then i believe it'd go to the board above this one in .net section

[Barabajagal]

Only if this board was labeled legacy Visual Basic. As it is, VB.NET will technically fit into either section by definition.

BTW, not to hijack this thread, but what has everyone been hearing about VB 10? I might hang my .NET hate on a shelf to try it out, just to see if they've improved it any.

[Yegg]

then i believe it'd go to the board above this one in .net section

Then I'd take into consideration the fact that this is a first time poster (hint: he has one post) and thus has a higher chance of placing something in the wrong category.

[Mystical]

its still vb6, but this was cool, we just blew up a post that had nothing to do with the original question.

[Warrior]

BTW, not to hijack this thread, but what has everyone been hearing about VB 10? I might hang my .NET hate on a shelf to try it out, just to see if they've improved it any.

http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/archive/2008/11/02/vb-2010-unveiled-at-pdc-2008-lisa-feigenbaum.aspx

Has some VB2010 features from PDC, more might have been unveiled since then.

However, you really should just make the leap to C#. VB .NET will probably always be a second class citizen in .NET .

[MyndFyre]

However, you really should just make the leap to C#. VB .NET will probably always be a second class citizen in .NET .

That's certainly not the way Microsoft is treating it.

[Barabajagal]

And in any case, you can usually convert between any of the three major .NET languages with #Develop.

[Warrior]

However, you really should just make the leap to C#. VB .NET will probably always be a second class citizen in .NET .

That's certainly not the way Microsoft is treating it.

Why do you think this? There is a quite obvious artificial crippling of the feature sets in VB.NET.

Just look at the features they're just now getting. It's quite pathetic.
Look no further than the C# 4.0 changes versus the VB.NET changes, the difference is quite clear.

Edit:

To further prove my point

Visual Basic 2005 introduced features meant to fill in the gaps between itself and other "more powerful" .NET languages, adding:

    * .NET 2.0 languages features such as:
          o generics [3]
          o Partial classes, a method of defining some parts of a class in one file and then adding more definitions later; particularly useful for integrating user code with auto-generated code
          o Nullable Types
    * XML comments that can be processed by tools like NDoc to produce "automatic" documentation
    * Operator overloading [4]
    * Support for unsigned integer data types commonly used in other languages

Source

My point is, Visual Basic, and more recently, Visual Basic .NET, should be avoided like the plague.

Seriously, use C#, it's not that scary.

[Warrior]

And in any case, you can usually convert between any of the three major .NET languages with #Develop.

That's true, but the point of syntax sugar is for it to be used while writing code.

[MyndFyre]

To further prove my point

Visual Basic 2005 introduced features meant to fill in the gaps between itself and other "more powerful" .NET languages, adding:

    * .NET 2.0 languages features such as:
          o generics [3]
          o Partial classes, a method of defining some parts of a class in one file and then adding more definitions later; particularly useful for integrating user code with auto-generated code
          o Nullable Types
    * XML comments that can be processed by tools like NDoc to produce "automatic" documentation
    * Operator overloading [4]
    * Support for unsigned integer data types commonly used in other languages

Source

My point is, Visual Basic, and more recently, Visual Basic .NET, should be avoided like the plague.

Seriously, use C#, it's not that scary.

Have you ever used Visual Basic .NET? 

Visual Studio 2005 is what deployed .NET 2.0.  Generic types were part of VC# and VB both in Studio 2005, and were not there prior.  Partial classes were introduced in Studio 2005 for both languages.  Nullable types are really an exposure of System.Nullable<T>, introduced in the BCL of .NET 2.0.  VB didn't support the other three items out of the box in 1.x (although people were writing tools to extract XML comments from VB code), but hey, C# doesn't support an intrinsic XML type, so it must suck.  C# doesn't support the My namespace, or the with statement. 

Visual Basic doesn't have crippling feature sets.  In fact at the PDC talks Anders talked a lot about how when one language gets a feature the other typically wants to add it in right away.  They access the same BCL and they're both considered first-class citizens of the .NET world, at least where Microsoft is involved.

[Warrior]

Have you ever used Visual Basic .NET? 

Yes.

Visual Studio 2005 is what deployed .NET 2.0.  Generic types were part of VC# and VB both in Studio 2005, and were not there prior.  Partial classes were introduced in Studio 2005 for both languages.  Nullable types are really an exposure of System.Nullable<T>, introduced in the BCL of .NET 2.0.

Of course, however, prior to this, there was a quite noticeable gap in functionality between VB.NET and C#.

Note a lack of overloaded operators, unsafe code, unsigned types, using statements, hell VB until 2005 didn't even have inheritance or interfaces!

You call that a first class citizen? Give me a break.

  VB didn't support the other three items out of the box in 1.x (although people were writing tools to extract XML comments from VB code), but hey, C# doesn't support an intrinsic XML type, so it must suck.  C# doesn't support the My namespace, or the with statement. 

Those are rather weak things to complain about, it's pretty obvious that VB.NET has historically always been a step behind C#.

Visual Basic doesn't have crippling feature sets.  In fact at the PDC talks Anders talked a lot about how when one language gets a feature the other typically wants to add it in right away. 

The language which typically gets the feature first is C#, which is the entire basis behind my argument. C# is at the forefront of .NET development, it's very seldom C# gets features VB has had for a while (The recent exception being named and optional params)

They access the same BCL and they're both considered first-class citizens of the .NET world, at least where Microsoft is involved.

History seems to disagree.