You might want to make the distinction between security systems and ACLs. If windows security were truly more complete than the UNIX model, windows exploits wouldn't be so rampant. A truly good security model wouldnt allow all the trivial exploits like you see today.
ACL is one small part of an overall system, as are unix user/group permissions. ACL does not a security system make, nor does user/group. (ACLs dont matter when win32 hooking is so easy, for example.)
Sad thing is, the original NT model had good facilities for security, but microsoft seems to have abandoned them in favor of lowest common demoninator usage. (The facilities are still there, but microsoft either doesn't use them, or largely overrides them).
It's not obvious to many other 'mac experts'. I've posted this pic on various mac forums and they almost always get it wrong.
It's an example of how really bad the aqua guidelines are. The old macos guidelines were far better, but apple chucked them out the window in favor of stupid eye candy.
15 years of very good UI research out the window. stupid, stupid, stupid.
Your response is quite different from your original post where you implied UNIX doesn't have ACLs:
The Windows permissions system is very complete, very granular and one of the few places where I think it surpasses its UNIX rivals.
ACLs as implemented in unix are part of a broader scheme of filesystem labeling which encompasses SELINUX as well as ACLs.
But ACLs in UNIX are as complete and granular as anything NT has to offer. The user interface just sucks at the moment:-)
ext3 supports ACLs and SELINUX, as does XFS. patches are no longer needed. (the page you quote is dated 2001... why not go ahead and quote some pages on windows 95 while you're at it:))
other filesystems are 'in progress' (eg reiser). however you already have more choice in filesystems in linux for this purpose than you do in NT (where your ONLY choice for ACLs is NTFS.)
yes, ACL support is spotty. it's getting better though.
It's a great example of apple violating their own UI guidelines (and to a lesser extent, an example of how truly bad those aqua guidelines are).
But yes, the about window has focus. It's even worse because it tricks you into thinking the "Software Update" window has focus when it doesn't. And really if you look at the screenshot, it appears that none of the windows has focus because none of the titlebars are shaded -- they are all greyed out. This is something that REALLY confused some of my "apple expert" buddies.
How apple violates the UI guidelines:
1) The title bar doesn't change shade, so you can't tell which window has focus. 2) The buttons don't change color, so you can't tell which window has focus. 3) The about window doesn't have a deeper shadow, so you can't tell which window has focus.
All three are violations of apple's own UI guidelines.
Now 1) isn't bad in theory but apple's aqua implementation is -- the difference between active and inactive windows is very minor and is often hard to discern, especially on laptops.
2) is very, very bad for color blind individuals. apple's old ui guidelines were very explicit about this. in fact most modern ui doctrine says this is bad.
And 3) is bad if your windows don't overlap or you have dark backgrounds.
Apple's old UI guidelines for old macos were far better. These stupid kind of ambiguities and inconsistencies simply didn't exist. They were well researched and well established for over 15 years.
Apple chucked them all out the window with OSX in favor of stupid eye candy.
I haven't used enough third party apps to determine if any others have the same problem. I ran into this one almost immediately in finder, and it's a great example because anyone with OSX can duplicate it.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of my complaints about aqua and OSX in general though. There's a lot of really stupid stupid stupid flaws in OSX that apple refuses to address because they have a terminal case of NIH syndrome. As a software developer, OSX drives me nuts.
For all the criticism apple users level at microsoft windows, at least microsoft windows no longer has this kind of basic inconsistent stupidity that you see in aqua (it has others though:))
Actually aqua is one of the worst things apple has done in OSX. Apple basically abandoned 15 years of excellent and well and thoroughly researched UI guidelines in favor of eye candy (gumdrop buttons, brushed metal, etc.). In fact much of aqua violates fundamental UI guidelines (eg, don't use color as an indicator of status or function)
Not to mention that you can't customize aqua at all without horrible, gross third party hacks.
For some strange reason, the rest of the quote was omitted from the article. I'll post it here for reader convenience.
Ballmer: 'We'll catch Google' Ballmer: And when we do, I'll club it to death like a baby seal. Then I'll wear its fur as a necktie, and its skeleton as a headpiece. This will be a warning to others.
Again, why the arbitrary constraint limiting your sources exclusively to foxnews and indymedia?
I read from a variety of sources, but I avoid both foxnews and indymedia. While your selection is "only these two" mine is "anything except these two".
Some spammer scum sending porno spam to a 9 year old child? Seems pretty cut and dry to me, all they have to do is paint the spammer as bad as a pedophile or something. Shrill cries of "protect the children". Boom. Instant extradition.
Any AG who refuses to extradite said "pedo" will face incredible public pressure.
Follow the money trail. Americans on american soil paying chinese/russian/etc spammers to spam for them. Quite simple to prosecute, only now the feds have real reason to follow up to "protect the children" -- there was no real motivation before which is why so few were prosecuted so far.
It's quite simple. You follow the money trail. And discover an american citizen on american soil paid a chinese to spam for him. Then you arrest the american and put him in prison.
Other times, it's an american citizen in china, in which case it's pretty simple to get him extradited and prosecuted.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, how about a fine of $1 for each computer he infected? No prison time, and an appropriate punishment for the scale of the crime.
Ah yes, blame the victim. Bravo.
I suppose you also think women are 'just asking for it' if they get raped, and they should share some of the blame and accept responsibility?
If you leave your doors unlocked and wide open, why the fuck wouldn't you expect someone to walk right on in?
Because in a civilized society, you're expected not to. And besides, there may be a loaded shotgun waiting for you inside.
The punishment should fit the scope and sale of the crime.
IOW, $1 for every computer infected.
You infidel aggressors are simply not content to bomb afghanistan and iraq!
American aggressors are now bombing innocent comets!
What do you think you will find, WMD or oil in Tempel I? Stupid USA!
NASA should go back to doing what it does best, making fake moon landings!
I'm only saying this because I care:
There's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
TBH I think microsoft (and you) are focusing on the wrong things :)
You might want to make the distinction between security systems and ACLs. If windows security were truly more complete than the UNIX model, windows exploits wouldn't be so rampant. A truly good security model wouldnt allow all the trivial exploits like you see today.
ACL is one small part of an overall system, as are unix user/group permissions. ACL does not a security system make, nor does user/group. (ACLs dont matter when win32 hooking is so easy, for example.)
Sad thing is, the original NT model had good facilities for security, but microsoft seems to have abandoned them in favor of lowest common demoninator usage. (The facilities are still there, but microsoft either doesn't use them, or largely overrides them).
Does NT have anything equivalent to SELINUX?
Can you use ACLs on anything other than NTFS?
It's not obvious to many other 'mac experts'. I've posted this pic on various mac forums and they almost always get it wrong.
It's an example of how really bad the aqua guidelines are. The old macos guidelines were far better, but apple chucked them out the window in favor of stupid eye candy.
15 years of very good UI research out the window. stupid, stupid, stupid.
Your response is quite different from your original post where you implied UNIX doesn't have ACLs:
:-)
:))
The Windows permissions system is very complete, very granular and one of the few places where I think it surpasses its UNIX rivals.
ACLs as implemented in unix are part of a broader scheme of filesystem labeling which encompasses SELINUX as well as ACLs.
But ACLs in UNIX are as complete and granular as anything NT has to offer. The user interface just sucks at the moment
ext3 supports ACLs and SELINUX, as does XFS. patches are no longer needed. (the page you quote is dated 2001... why not go ahead and quote some pages on windows 95 while you're at it
other filesystems are 'in progress' (eg reiser). however you already have more choice in filesystems in linux for this purpose than you do in NT (where your ONLY choice for ACLs is NTFS.)
yes, ACL support is spotty. it's getting better though.
does NT have anything equivalent to SELINUX?
It's a great example of apple violating their own UI guidelines (and to a lesser extent, an example of how truly bad those aqua guidelines are).
:))
But yes, the about window has focus. It's even worse because it tricks you into thinking the "Software Update" window has focus when it doesn't. And really if you look at the screenshot, it appears that none of the windows has focus because none of the titlebars are shaded -- they are all greyed out. This is something that REALLY confused some of my "apple expert" buddies.
How apple violates the UI guidelines:
1) The title bar doesn't change shade, so you can't tell which window has focus.
2) The buttons don't change color, so you can't tell which window has focus.
3) The about window doesn't have a deeper shadow, so you can't tell which window has focus.
All three are violations of apple's own UI guidelines.
Now 1) isn't bad in theory but apple's aqua implementation is -- the difference between active and inactive windows is very minor and is often hard to discern, especially on laptops.
2) is very, very bad for color blind individuals. apple's old ui guidelines were very explicit about this. in fact most modern ui doctrine says this is bad.
And 3) is bad if your windows don't overlap or you have dark backgrounds.
Apple's old UI guidelines for old macos were far better. These stupid kind of ambiguities and inconsistencies simply didn't exist. They were well researched and well established for over 15 years.
Apple chucked them all out the window with OSX in favor of stupid eye candy.
I haven't used enough third party apps to determine if any others have the same problem. I ran into this one almost immediately in finder, and it's a great example because anyone with OSX can duplicate it.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of my complaints about aqua and OSX in general though. There's a lot of really stupid stupid stupid flaws in OSX that apple refuses to address because they have a terminal case of NIH syndrome. As a software developer, OSX drives me nuts.
For all the criticism apple users level at microsoft windows, at least microsoft windows no longer has this kind of basic inconsistent stupidity that you see in aqua (it has others though
now try managing 45,000 users in 1500 different groups on the same NT box.
all of a sudden, ACLs and GUI isnt quite as attractive or "easy" anymore.
fwiw linux has ACLs too. just as 'complete' and 'granular' as NT. GUI integration is poor, but ACLs are there and are usable.
The Software Update window has the focus.
WRONG!!
Really. It is NOT the Software Update Window.
Try again.
If even 'knowledgeable' OSX users like you get it wrong, what are novices to think?
11. Aqua. (not the ugly University colors of XP).
Actually aqua is one of the worst things apple has done in OSX. Apple basically abandoned 15 years of excellent and well and thoroughly researched UI guidelines in favor of eye candy (gumdrop buttons, brushed metal, etc.). In fact much of aqua violates fundamental UI guidelines (eg, don't use color as an indicator of status or function)
Not to mention that you can't customize aqua at all without horrible, gross third party hacks.
You want an example of how aqua is fucked up? tell me dear apple, which window has focus?
...use the system to destroy itself.
really, we need lots more idiots like this. the USPTO system needs to be ground to a screeching halt, tied up in endless frivolous lawsuits like this.
only then will legislators get motivated enough to fix the system.
A lot of violent criminals are also attracted to the bible, or are members of fundamentalist christian groups.
In fact I would bet far more murders are committed claiming "god made me do it" than "GTA3 made me do it".
But banning video games is fashionable, hip, cool, and trendy -- banning the bible is not.
For some strange reason, the rest of the quote was omitted from the article. I'll post it here for reader convenience.
Ballmer: 'We'll catch Google'
Ballmer: And when we do, I'll club it to death like a baby seal. Then I'll wear its fur as a necktie, and its skeleton as a headpiece. This will be a warning to others.
Again, why the arbitrary constraint limiting your sources exclusively to foxnews and indymedia?
I read from a variety of sources, but I avoid both foxnews and indymedia. While your selection is "only these two" mine is "anything except these two".
Even al jazeera is less biased than indymedia.
If you agree with their ideas then go ahead and listen to them, if not then keep watching FoxNews.
I don't get it. Why does it have to be either indymedia or foxnews? Why impose the arbitrary limit?
IMO it can certainly be neither.
Both indymedia and foxnews are equally nutty.
indymedia is full of cranks and wild-eyed woo-woos, but at least they dont try to hide their bias (honest cranks? heh.)
I'd rather deal with a crap-eating dog which will take orders, than an aloof cat which just stares at me blankly.
:-P
Yeah, I'm sure it's even better when said crap-eating dog gives you nice big sloppy kisses.
Some spammer scum sending porno spam to a 9 year old child? Seems pretty cut and dry to me, all they have to do is paint the spammer as bad as a pedophile or something. Shrill cries of "protect the children". Boom. Instant extradition.
Any AG who refuses to extradite said "pedo" will face incredible public pressure.
Follow the money trail. Americans on american soil paying chinese/russian/etc spammers to spam for them. Quite simple to prosecute, only now the feds have real reason to follow up to "protect the children" -- there was no real motivation before which is why so few were prosecuted so far.
It's quite simple. You follow the money trail. And discover an american citizen on american soil paid a chinese to spam for him. Then you arrest the american and put him in prison.
Other times, it's an american citizen in china, in which case it's pretty simple to get him extradited and prosecuted.
to be fair, many companies got bit by the exploding capacitor fiasco. Gigabyte, MSI, ABIT, ASUS, and even Intel had them.
Try DVD-RW or DVD+RW. I use both without problems for a couple years now. No disc failures yet, and I have maybe 100+ burned discs in storage.
I have DLT as well, but random access is very convenient.
For bulk offline storage I use firewire (200gb) drives, for stuff that isnt critical.