UAC is first and foremost a masterful artifice disguised as security. It's a blame shifting mechanism. OS compromise? It's your fault.
OK, and how is this any different than sudo or setuid root or the other unix mechanisms that accomplish the same thing? Whoops, the administrator blew his leg off.
I don't see how you can have a personal computer without some responsiblity/blame falling on the person. Otherwise you have an iPhone or an XBox.
The computer management MMC consolidates what was a bunch of separate 'applets' - Disk Manager, Device Manager, User Manager, and so on.
However, not all of these applets necessarily require Administrative rights. Most of them probably could function as Read-Only for a regular user. And some of them, like Task Scheduler or Shared Folders should be somewhat usable by a non-administrator.
What they probably should do is update MMC so that each console applet can run with different security privileges (but that might mean even more UAC prompts, depending).
While I'm sure MS enjoys the association, the idea that "PC" = "IBM compatible PC" goes back to 1984 if not earlier, and is probably mostly due to IBM's heavy advertising. For example, you had "PC Magazine" which was 99% DOS/Windows coverage.
Never really thought about it before, but you're right, it should be under \Start Menu. Just like how the IE bookmarks toolbar is under \Favorites, for example.
Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed
You are using a 16MB Mac Performa 630 and it takes 3 minutes to start Netscape. Also if you close the app and try to reopen it, you get an out-of-memory error due to the shitty memory manager. Also your disk cache is only 128K.
In other words it's mostly a legacy of the old MacOS that traditional Mac users are comfortable with.
It might not be common, but the same experience here. Stations that were almost unwatchable on analog are crystal clear on digital using generic rabbit ears. Best $20 I ever spent on television.
IE loses them money and is still the dominant browser
Very doubtful. If Firefox can make tens of millions per year through the home page and search box, Microsoft with their much larger market share must be pulling down a whole lot more.
At the very least IE is propping up the whole MSN division.
City of SF Admins, if this proves to be your resolution, you owe me $150 for 1 hour of my time. Sorry, I do not bill in lower increments.
I know nobody RTFAs, but the city is spending $1 million on consultants to rebuild the network, so sorry a guy like is just too cheap for this project.
I agree, and it's especially ironic coming from an OS2er because the only people who really adopted OS/2 were big banks and corporations that built proprietary "SNA" applications to connect to their mainframes.
OS/2 was never pitched to the simple web/email user, it was always marketed as a corporate or power user OS.
While that's true, you have to realize that almost nobody would have used OS/2 in the first place without the Win16 support. OS/2 was intended to be the successor to Windows and the major sell point was "Better Windows Than Windows".
With the windows support, OS/2 was relatively much more popular as a desktop OS in ~1994 than Linux is today.
I don't think anyone was questioning why anyone would want to copy DVD's - just why they'd want to do so with this program. Doing so with the free stuff out there isn't THAT hard.
The only 'real' advantage to this program is that you can go into a store and buy it. It comes from a semi-legit company and probably doesn't have too many spyware and popup modules included.
Take an objective look at say "Doom9.net - The definitive DVD backup resource". The home page is covered with jibberish about things called "eac3to" and "DGAVCDec" and "AviSynth". Even aside from the vaugely hackerish feel of the site, this is hugely intimidating for the average dumbass.
There's a new Wolfenstein coming out (with multiplayer), so hopefully they'll integrate some of the matchmaking and other ideas. But the new title probably precludes a free version.
"Tell me why it's my job to tell you that your software has a bug."
Which is more or less my take, even expending the enormous effort to click the "send report" button when the browser went down.
I was somewhat dissatisfied with Firefox for various reasons so I gave Safari/Win an honest test-drive and found it lacking. Its quite possible that my surfing habits are abnormal or that there's something site-specific going on here, despite some collaborating reports. However, with such a wealth of browser options, I'm not going to concern myself too much over it.
IE has been able to create separate process for each instance of the browser for quite some time(mostly because internet explorer and explorer used to share code and crashing one would crash the other which wasn't good)
Recall that the old versions of Mozilla even had the mail client running in the same process. And for the longest time Firefox and Thunderbird shared no DLLs. It was a bad design decision from the very beginning.
Well, the observation that I made was not that they would never use Safari/Win, but that they would never even try it.
Apple foisted this on iTunes users but never bothered to explain "What's a Safari?". I bet most people don't even know it's a web browser or why they should click on it.
In my own experience with Safari/Win on my XP test machine, I've never encountered any bugs, so obviously everyone's mileage may vary.
I've been using Safari/Windows as a fulltime browser on-and-off, and it leaks tons of memory and crashes semi-frequently.
However it does the same thing on OS X, so if you're comfortable with that experience you might not notice that it's not up to snuff with IE and Firefox in the stability department.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Even if ads were served from the site's server, there would be some URL pattern that could be used to block them.
The reality is that so few people block ads it's not worth any effort to defeat them. Such people just simply 'don't count' for traffic metrics, it's noise like bot traffic or whatever.
Nobody really cares except juveniles that have a simplistic Good versus Evil worldview that they picked up from their trashy Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies.
"Don't be evil" was never anything more than viral marketing.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Avoid using the user agent string to check which browser is currently running. Instead, read Object Detection to learn how to determine if a browser supports a particular object, property, or method
Nice in theory, but in practice browsers claim to support things that actually buggy and/or non-functional. Apple themselves was very guilty of this with early versions of Safari that had crap DOM support.
If something simply doesn't work in Browser X Version Y, there's little you can do but sniff the UA and work around it.
Slashdot Mirror
UAC is first and foremost a masterful artifice disguised as security. It's a blame shifting mechanism. OS compromise? It's your fault.
OK, and how is this any different than sudo or setuid root or the other unix mechanisms that accomplish the same thing? Whoops, the administrator blew his leg off.
I don't see how you can have a personal computer without some responsiblity/blame falling on the person. Otherwise you have an iPhone or an XBox.
The computer management MMC consolidates what was a bunch of separate 'applets' - Disk Manager, Device Manager, User Manager, and so on.
However, not all of these applets necessarily require Administrative rights. Most of them probably could function as Read-Only for a regular user. And some of them, like Task Scheduler or Shared Folders should be somewhat usable by a non-administrator.
What they probably should do is update MMC so that each console applet can run with different security privileges (but that might mean even more UAC prompts, depending).
While I'm sure MS enjoys the association, the idea that "PC" = "IBM compatible PC" goes back to 1984 if not earlier, and is probably mostly due to IBM's heavy advertising. For example, you had "PC Magazine" which was 99% DOS/Windows coverage.
You can see in this ad, Apple is already bristling that IBM is coopting the PC term:
http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads2/seriouslyIBM_l.jpg
Never really thought about it before, but you're right, it should be under \Start Menu. Just like how the IE bookmarks toolbar is under \Favorites, for example.
It wasn't just porn, in ye olden days Google didn't index overly commercial sites.
For example, if you search for "HP printer", there's almost no shopping or ink sales results.
Just for the record, an IBM keyboard has a carriage return symbol on the Enter key.
Could you provide an example scenario where it would be preferable to keep pure GUI applications running in the background when any way of interacting with that program is removed
You are using a 16MB Mac Performa 630 and it takes 3 minutes to start Netscape. Also if you close the app and try to reopen it, you get an out-of-memory error due to the shitty memory manager. Also your disk cache is only 128K.
In other words it's mostly a legacy of the old MacOS that traditional Mac users are comfortable with.
It might not be common, but the same experience here. Stations that were almost unwatchable on analog are crystal clear on digital using generic rabbit ears. Best $20 I ever spent on television.
IE loses them money and is still the dominant browser
Very doubtful. If Firefox can make tens of millions per year through the home page and search box, Microsoft with their much larger market share must be pulling down a whole lot more.
At the very least IE is propping up the whole MSN division.
There's an animation when a new tab opens, so some of the lag is by design.
City of SF Admins, if this proves to be your resolution, you owe me $150 for 1 hour of my time. Sorry, I do not bill in lower increments.
I know nobody RTFAs, but the city is spending $1 million on consultants to rebuild the network, so sorry a guy like is just too cheap for this project.
I agree, and it's especially ironic coming from an OS2er because the only people who really adopted OS/2 were big banks and corporations that built proprietary "SNA" applications to connect to their mainframes.
OS/2 was never pitched to the simple web/email user, it was always marketed as a corporate or power user OS.
While that's true, you have to realize that almost nobody would have used OS/2 in the first place without the Win16 support. OS/2 was intended to be the successor to Windows and the major sell point was "Better Windows Than Windows".
With the windows support, OS/2 was relatively much more popular as a desktop OS in ~1994 than Linux is today.
I don't think that's correct. Disc with a 'c' because the recording industry decided that was cool. The traditional spelling is with a 'k'.
I don't think anyone was questioning why anyone would want to copy DVD's - just why they'd want to do so with this program. Doing so with the free stuff out there isn't THAT hard.
The only 'real' advantage to this program is that you can go into a store and buy it. It comes from a semi-legit company and probably doesn't have too many spyware and popup modules included.
Take an objective look at say "Doom9.net - The definitive DVD backup resource". The home page is covered with jibberish about things called "eac3to" and "DGAVCDec" and "AviSynth". Even aside from the vaugely hackerish feel of the site, this is hugely intimidating for the average dumbass.
Yep, my posts are pretty great.
There's a new Wolfenstein coming out (with multiplayer), so hopefully they'll integrate some of the matchmaking and other ideas. But the new title probably precludes a free version.
"Tell me why it's my job to tell you that your software has a bug."
Which is more or less my take, even expending the enormous effort to click the "send report" button when the browser went down.
I was somewhat dissatisfied with Firefox for various reasons so I gave Safari/Win an honest test-drive and found it lacking. Its quite possible that my surfing habits are abnormal or that there's something site-specific going on here, despite some collaborating reports. However, with such a wealth of browser options, I'm not going to concern myself too much over it.
OS X 10.4 with all patches. You can find numerous other similar reports on various Mac forums around the web.
I've sent about 25 Safari/Win crash reports to Microsoft. Presumably Apple is picking these up.
And the steps to reproduce are pretty simple. "Use YouTube a lot".
IE has been able to create separate process for each instance of the browser for quite some time(mostly because internet explorer and explorer used to share code and crashing one would crash the other which wasn't good)
Recall that the old versions of Mozilla even had the mail client running in the same process. And for the longest time Firefox and Thunderbird shared no DLLs. It was a bad design decision from the very beginning.
Well, the observation that I made was not that they would never use Safari/Win, but that they would never even try it.
Apple foisted this on iTunes users but never bothered to explain "What's a Safari?". I bet most people don't even know it's a web browser or why they should click on it.
In my own experience with Safari/Win on my XP test machine, I've never encountered any bugs, so obviously everyone's mileage may vary.
I've been using Safari/Windows as a fulltime browser on-and-off, and it leaks tons of memory and crashes semi-frequently.
However it does the same thing on OS X, so if you're comfortable with that experience you might not notice that it's not up to snuff with IE and Firefox in the stability department.
Even if ads were served from the site's server, there would be some URL pattern that could be used to block them.
The reality is that so few people block ads it's not worth any effort to defeat them. Such people just simply 'don't count' for traffic metrics, it's noise like bot traffic or whatever.
Nobody really cares except juveniles that have a simplistic Good versus Evil worldview that they picked up from their trashy Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies.
"Don't be evil" was never anything more than viral marketing.
Avoid using the user agent string to check which browser is currently running. Instead, read Object Detection to learn how to determine if a browser supports a particular object, property, or method
Nice in theory, but in practice browsers claim to support things that actually buggy and/or non-functional. Apple themselves was very guilty of this with early versions of Safari that had crap DOM support.
If something simply doesn't work in Browser X Version Y, there's little you can do but sniff the UA and work around it.