Slashdot Mirror
New Shared Computer Toolkit for Windows
cygnusx writes "Microsoft Monitor and Ars Technica are reporting that Microsoft has released an administrative toolkit (beta) to help secure Windows machines that are shared by a number of people. Features include protecting the Windows partition from non-administrative changes and Group Policy-like access restrictions. This should be good news because Microsoft seems to be recognizing that not everyone can go down the Active Directory path to manage their Windows machines better."
A lot of large labs that I've seen run Windows 2000, and this functionality is useless, as the toolkit is only for Windows XP.
My lab, for instance, has approximately 100 terminals running Windows 2000...and none of them can benefit from this.
Great job, too late, Microsoft.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
The problem lies more in the design, architecture, and implementation. One facet recently appeared here (The 12-minute Windows Heist) and here (Windows Users Ignoring LUA Security).
Microsoft "grew up" from a fundamentally different mindset than real (no troll intended, just pragmatic viewpoint) computing technologies. Microsoft takes credit (rightly or wrongly) for inventing the PC. PC, that's Personal Computer... and the directory structure (among other things) especially reflects these roots:
The third item above was especially interesting to me when I worked at Microsoft. This was the early days of NT, and when I hired on, I didn't have a machine in my office powerful enough to run NT. Wanting to get an early start on learning as much as possible about NT I had an office peer set up an account for me on another NT machine. I asked how to "login" to that machine. He looked at me as if I were mad. His (their) notion of multi-user meant my account on his box gave me access to file services pretty much, not much more.
Administration tools, while a nice idea, in light of the historical artifacts of Windows are only a bandaid over a compound fracture. It might cover up the bleeding and hide the potentially fatal wound, but it isn't going to solve the problem. Microsoft should have taken the time to desing the "P" out of PC when they completely re-designed the underlying technology. Had they done so, many of these problems today either wouldn't exist or would be much easier to fix.
0000000 is a geniune windows validation code according to the MS website.
:)
Download all you like, kids
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Now all the bot networks operators can control their bots a lot better, right?
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
is generated randomly in javascript by the registration page. Eight digits - the first must be nonzero, the last is seven minus (the sum of the others, mod 7). E.g 10000006.
OK, I will bite.
Insert windows issue here
See there is the thing - they all have issues. You want supported Wifi (That - I must point out was designed on a win machine - like a win modem) Me, I want ron jobs, and windows has no such feature. So, you know what? Despite standing on opposite sides - we are both right.Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
>Not true. Essentially, there are three >directories, "Documents and Settings" (/home), >"Program Files" (/bin), and "Windows" (no direct >UNIQ equivilent).
/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin is to separate crucial stuff which should be readonly 99% of the time, vs core applications, vs local additions, vs possibly network mounted apps. and you know that these can all be mounted read only cause thats the difference between /usr and /var .. oh try having your applications on their own readonly partition in windos ...
right. so Program files is a total hodgepodge. try preventing many applications from writing to their "program files" directory. in unix the point of
1)STFU
>Bullshit. Try fast user switching in Windows >sometime. Or, for that matter, log onto a server >running Windows Server 2003. Just because *you* >don't use the functionaltiy doesn't mean that >it's not there. It's built into XP (though locked >down) and into Windows Server 2000 and 2003.
fastuser switching is not the same as multiuser. you can switch with windos-L or whatever. and you can runas.. all you like.. try having a remote user logon and partake of your computer sometime.. oh yeah it logs you out of you desktop..
2)STFU
>Also wrong. While there have been some >compromises, such as moving the GDI into >kernel-space, the HAL is still very much used in >Windows 2000/XP/2003. DirectX uses the HAL. >Indeed, Windows has much *more* hardware >isolation than systems with a monolithic kernel, >such as Linux.
pfff. the ring 0/3 thing is exactly the point. you know that we know that you know, that that was what was being implied by the GP.. ohhh. go on tell me you know someone with a nvidia card that runs the WHQL drivers... oh the official nvidia drivers require you to click "rape me now to continue".. so its obviously the users fault fro not crippling the main reason for owning the machine.
>"many programs because of buggy behavior (this is >not necessarily Microsoft's fault, but it's still >true) require(d) conditional code in NT/XP to run >thus propogating buggy design right back into the >"new" product."
see previous point.
>This is not limited to Microsoft alone. Even CPUs >must maintain bug-compatibility. Trying to run >old code on a new platform is not an easy task, >and the fact that 10-year-old appplications run >at all is impressive.
see wine.
>Your information is out of date. Windows XP is >not Windows 98, and it's not Windows NT4.
but the gdi -> ring 0 design shift from nt3.1 remains in XP.
>believe. Its architecture is no less secure than >Linux - indeed, Linux is a hodgepodge of code.
try chroot. sometime. it kicks the arse off walking/running everything in virtual machines
>Do not sell Microsoft short. They didn't take 95% >of the desktop OS market by being stupid.
yes they did.
>They did it by understanding what their customers >would buy. In the end, people want their games to >run. They want their copy of Acrobat 3.0 to run.
but obviously they dont want their copy of wordperfect or corel or notes to run. check the ibm settlement.
>To many of Microsoft's customers, that's more >important than having a "pure" OS. To most users, >loose permissions and open ports are a small >price to pay for that functionality
no its not functionality and its not a small price. its the opposite. take your blinders off. its a lockin, scam, whatever you want to call it. I call shenanigans on microsfot.
I used to read Ars Technica, until it became apparent that "Caesar" Ken Fisher is a racist. He typically comes off like your typical smug armchair intellectual, but once he gets fired up, he's got quite a mouth on him. I've seen him get pretty worked up on IRC over basically nothing.
It's too bad, too, since the other guys on the site like Hannibal are actually pretty smart.