BD under Windows 7?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Exactly what HarryT was trying to point out. The current problem is a number of regular Windows apps currently require elevated permissions just to run because programmers were taking the easy way out by writing to system/application directories. Once that bad habit is beaten out of them, though, users won't need to run apps in administrator mode and UAC would actually become a practical approach to security. Similar systems already exist in both Linux (sudo) and MacOS. Users need elevated permissions in order to make critical system changes.

Microsoft needed to introduce this system to improve security. Now, it's just up to the programmers to catch up.

You still do not get my point it seems. They introduced the system with permissions in a bad way since programmers did not follow the recommendations. I object to putting the blame in the programmers. The whole blame is the design of the system that encourage or force programmers to not follow the recommendations.

It might also be the case that Windows is not fixable in a good way since they have to allow certain things. But that again is the fault of the basic design of the operating system.

If you for example design a security checkpoint (at an airport for example) so that the people working there can get away with being lazy and not checking things properly then you do not blame the lazy people for this. It is your design of the checkpoint and the whole system that is bad.

[JSWolf]

The thing is, UAC sucks. Plain and simple. I don't want to have to click yes every time I want to run a program. If a program vilotales the rules, then fair enough, go ahead and ask me if I want to let the program continue to run. But if the program is following the rules, then don't bother me. UAC was done all wrong and that's why it gets the blame for everything.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by tompe

You still do not get my point it seems. They introduced the system with permissions in a bad way since programmers did not follow the recommendations. I object to putting the blame in the programmers. The whole blame is the design of the system that encourage or force programmers to not follow the recommendations.

See, that's the thing. Microsoft did not force or encourage programmers to not follow recommendations but they condoned it in earlier versions of Windows. It's like you tell your kids too much chocolate is bad for them but when you see them eating chocolate, you do nothing. After several years, they develop diabetes so you then have to limit their chocolate intake but they kick up a fuss when you do so you're forced to give in to quiet them down.

Originally Posted by tompe

If you for example design a security checkpoint (at an airport for example) so that the people working there can get away with being lazy and not checking things properly then you do not blame the lazy people for this. It is your design of the checkpoint and the whole system that is bad.

Funny you should make that analogy. Let's say Microsoft made a poorly designed security checkpoint. We'll call it Windows. They upgraded it every few years (2~3 was the schedule) to improve security but there were still some design flaws. After 5 years, Microsoft then decides to fix the design flaws to improve security. Let's call this upgrade Vista. Unfortunately, with the recent upgrade lazy people can't continue being lazy anymore. Most of the lazy people shaped up but there were still a few who thought it was their God-given right to be lazy. These lazy people called upon their union to fight for their jobs. They also called the press and there was much mud slinging against Vista involved. After lengthy proceedings, because of some inane bureaucratic regulation, concessions were made to allow the lazy people to keep their jobs. Due to the bad publicity, Microsoft decided to upgrade the system ahead of schedule. The latest upgrade will be called Windows 7 and it is currently undergoing testing prior to deployment. In the new system, a whole division will be given to the lazy people where they can continue to be lazy without affecting other non-lazy people in the department. Hopefully, there will be no more people joining the ranks of the lazy and the division will be rid of once all the lazy people retire.

In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of Vista. Most of my computers are still using XP. I have one Vista laptop and I have UAC disabled. However, I do understand why Microsoft had to make this change. Yes, the current iteration is irritating as hell and they need to fix it so it's less intrusive. Getting rid of it altogether, however, is a step backwards.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of Vista. Most of my computers are still using XP. I have one Vista laptop and I have UAC disabled. However, I do understand why Microsoft had to make this change. Yes, the current iteration is irritating as hell and they need to fix it so it's less intrusive. Getting rid of it altogether, however, is a step backwards.

UAC needs to be unobtrusive until it has to pop up. Having to authorize everything you do when you know it's safe is part of why people hate Vista. It is my computer and I do not want the OS asking me what I want to do when I just told it what I want to do.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of Vista. Most of my computers are still using XP. I have one Vista laptop and I have UAC disabled. However, I do understand why Microsoft had to make this change. Yes, the current iteration is irritating as hell and they need to fix it so it's less intrusive. Getting rid of it altogether, however, is a step backwards.

Maybe Microsoft made the only possible choices. I have said nothing about this. But it is still not the programmers fault that the security is bad. It is still Microsoft's fault. It seems that you misunderstand me and do not understand that this is the only point I am making here.

[Krystian Galaj]

I would agree that it's the consequence of Microsoft's decisions and strategies (ie. not making enough trouble when app writes to application's directory, and such) that programmers didn't have to read through all the rules to make working programs. Still, I wouldn't consider it anyone's fault - Microsoft wanted to have more programs for Windows, and more programmers for it at the time, and this may have been a part of their strategy to get them.
The people discussiing here seem to agree with everything but the choice of words.

[crutledge]

Harry is correct. A programmer can make his program "fool proof" but there is no way to make it "damn fool proof."
Charlie

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by crutledge

Harry is correct. A programmer can make his program "fool proof" but there is no way to make it "damn fool proof."
Charlie

If Microsoft cared about the rules, they would have made it so XP followed the rules. It's not hard to make it so you cannot write to Program Files.

[DragonRider]

I've gone the route that I created a the following comptuer in Virtual Box, VirtWinXPBooks. Its a virtualized installation of Windows XP specifically for downloading, converting, and working on books. Much easier than trying to figure out everything and having to setup everything I reinstall. I've done the same thing with Photo Editing programs on a different install. So far its worked under Ubuntu 8.04, 9.10, XP Pro, Vista Business, Ultimate, Win 7 Beta, and tomorrow I'll let you know with RC once I get it tonight(currently downloading)

All my old comps lying around the house not being used are being useful again.

Just an idea and my solution.