+Bob+ said:
No, unlike an uneducated putz like you who is incapable of discussing
an issue without throwing insults "hates" a company like MS. I don't
"hate" anyone but I do make objective evaluations of software.
Look who is talking? I don't see nothing but name calling from you. It's
that same Ringmaster Albright mentality.
UAC is a massive global block that is poorly designed and implemented.
Instead of building an intelligent scheme for determining what
programs and feature changes should be allowed to run, MS put a
massive block to stop everything and anything from happening,
regardless of the "danger". This results in users being constantly
bombarded with UAC messages. That then causes them to get in the habit
of simply OKing the messages and ignoring any possible security
benefit related or simply shutting off UAC. But, to do any less than
shut it off is to disable the ability to get work done.
I have been using MS SQL Server, IIS, VS 2008 and a whole of host of
other work activities with Vista UAC enabled, and it's not giving me any
problems. I am NOT being bombarded with massive UAC prompts. Just
because you read something and don't know what you're doing does that
apply to all.
They are doing the same thing on Linux with its security scheme with
allowing the user to run with non admin rights and doing something that
requires root admin rights by giving a user-id and psw to approve
escalated rights at the time of approval to root admin rights, instead
of doing everything with unrestricted Admin rights.
OTOH, a properly designed UAC that only popped up when there was truly
a danger would have none of the problems of Vista's UAC and would
actually increase security. MS took the cheap way out and it shows.
It's not about the danger. It's about asking the user to give
permissions to escalate privileges to full admin rights to allow the
program to run or allow the user who is a Standard user as user/admin on
Vista with UAC enabled or a Standard user to perform a task and return
the user/admin back to Standard user once the escalation is completed,
just like it's done on Linux.
And there are many solutions with more and more solutions coming that
are Vista UAC compliant that will run on Vista that only require
Standard user rights to run. No UAC prompt is displayed if only Standard
user rights are needed to run the application.
On top of that, one can run as Super Admin with UAC enabled, which is
user with Full Rights at all times, no UAC prompt is presented and still
have the protection of UAC for Standard users who may login to the machine.
Likewise, their file/directory protection scheme consists of globally
prohibiting users from accessing anything but their specified user
areas. This again results in repeated issues with file protection.
Instead of adopting a proper file and directory protection scheme,
they again chose a global block.
This is not correct. It's a simple NTFS user permissions issue for the
user/admin, because UAC is looking at the permissions of the user
account as User, and it is looking at the Administrator group account as
Administrator for the user/admin.
And if they don't match in the permissions between the two accounts,
then it's access denied, because Vista and UAC are looking at the
user/admin and not just admin with full rights, like on XP or Win 2K.
Again, the only reasonable solution for anyone but a neophyte user is
to disable it so that they can actually get work done and customize
their system as needed. Once again, MS took the cheap way out and it
shows.
No, it's up to the user to understand what is happening, like I have had
to understand what is happening with UAC enabled. And it doesn't take a
rocket scientists to figure it out. But most Windows users like you are
too lazy to figure things out. I have no problems (none) with UAC or
Vista once I took the time to open up the hood and look.
However, these same lazy Windows users run over Linux and have to figure
things out on Linux in order to use the O/S properly and they become
computer guru's according to them.
The root of the problem is that MS still doesn't have a proper system
architecture or security structure in place. Years after the promises
of NT providing a proper architecture, application and system software
continues to mix in system directories. Programs and processes
continue to have access to the core operating system when they should
be shut down at the gate.
Nonsense, MS is starting to change things on the platform starting with
..NET and now starting with Vista. You just don't know it. Nothing
happens over night or as fast as you and some others think it should.
But again, it's not your show, right?
*That's* what's wrong with Vista security and at MS. A *real* security
model is what users have been asking for - not a simplistic band-aid
applied on top of a poorly designed OS.
Like I told you, opinions are a dime a dozen. Everyone has got an
opinion, even you.
When did you become an expert's expert? Show me somewhere that your name
is up in lights, and that anyone should take your word as gospel.
If you want to argue the issues, have at it. If you want to throw
insults, go back to the sandbox where you belong.
I am not here to argue anything with you. You want to argue, then argue
with yourself, because I am already tired of you, I don't want to have
anything to do with you, and you mean nothing to me, period.
You post again, and you're going to get the <snip> and <plank>.
