Because the fourth isn't time. Time may be a dimension in the real world (although not the "fourth" since numbering them is arbitrary), but there's no requirement to include it in this simulation. Just like no one looks at a 2d graph and says, "Where's the third dimension?"
In this simulation, the extra two dimensions are spatial. They're just like the regular three, except they're two other directions. Naturally we can't depict them as a four dimensional being would see them, but we can represent them in a way that behaves like they would, which is enough for the purposes of this puzzle.
In fact, it's a pretty horrible idea to have barely computer-literate people downloading.exe installers off random web sites. Goodbye computer security: hello Bonzi Buddy! Package managers, in addition to being easy, give you one trusted source for your software.
I'm pretty sure it comes with mp3 support, but other than that, you're spot on.
Re:Dapper is good, but it's not there yet.
on
Ubuntu 6.06 Reviewed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Your kidding yourself if you believe that good old Hypothetical Grandma can install Windows XP and get her video drivers (preperatory to pwning some noobs in CS:S, one would imagine). I won't try to convince you that she could do it in Dapper either, but Grandma is not going to track down ATIs driver page, download the drivers, answer whatever questions come up in the install, reboot her computer, then get her game on. Grandma isn't dumb, but Grandma has no interest whatsoever in drivers (whatever those are). Grandma just wants here Counterstrike fix. It's going to be her tech-savvy grandson that gets the computer set up.
Maintaining a computer is not difficult, although is can be a little arcane. Anyone *can* learn to maintain them. It's whether you want to that counts. If you can't figure out how to work Linux, it's because you don't want to, not because it's too hard. "Too hard" just means that you don't know how to do it already, and you don't want to learn. Windows is just as "too hard" as most Linux distros to someone who doesn't know how to work it yet (like Grandma).
As a side note, it's never as simple as clicking setup.exe and letting it do all the work. Almost any installer asks for an install path. Drivers generally like to ask you about installing some support software. That's not much, but it's still something, and it will confuse Grandma as much as./configure ; make ; make install*. You're making Windows out to be a lot easier to use than it is. Windows doesn't even *have* a package manager, or an update service for every package installed through it. You get security updates, and occasionally a driver. Why complain about what happens under Linux when a package doesn't exist, but not complain about how Windows completely lacks the feature?
* Actually, it often goes more like./Here'sMyInstaller.run -- exactly the same as double clicking setup.exe.
"All they know is that this stuff works automatically in XP or OSX." They may "know" it, but the rest of us know they're wrong. Every system needs configuration when you install new hardware or an OS. Most users just use whatever came on their computer; the work has been done for them, but it still had to be done. Windows won't magically work when you put new hardware in any more than Linux will.
"I think the Ubuntu team really needs to rethink leaving out MP3 decoders and regular codec support. Microsoft doesn't seem to have 'licensing issues' when they ship XP with those features, and neither does Apple." Of course they don't, because they can license them. Who's going to pony up the cash to license them for an unlimited number of Ubuntu systems?
Using two fingers is definitely your problem. It's pretty much impossible to touch type accurately like that. Touch typing relies on being oriented to the home row and having each finger assigned to specific keys. When you have to move your hands around to reach them all, it becomes really hard to know where you are.
I guess if the only way to test a user's privelages is to try to run then it's better than I thought. It would be unlikely that malware would happen to guess the right time to do its work.
I think MS's approach does ask for a password if you're not the admin, but I'm not sure.
If Linux and Mac OS aren't inherently more secure, then how is Microsoft's implementation of the same feature supposed to help security? They're all based on the idea of giving each user a "sandbox" that they're allowed to play in.
Now that I think about it, this seems like a bad idea. What's to prevent malware from hanging around and waiting for your credentials to be elevated, then 0wning your box? That's a five minute window by default, isn't it? Su seems a lot safer, since it doesn't have the stored password feature.
Actually, Microsoft's solution seems good. It's like su -c 'whatever.exe', and is exactly how I would have done it. It's just that unlike *nix systems, which have historically limited users' privelages, Windows hasn't, which is a pain in the ass with programs that aren't built with UAC in mind.
That doesn't scare me at all, so long as I can log in as a superuser whenever I need complete control.
A child (or parent) shouldn't be running antivirus. That should be started and run by the system, because it needs those privelages.
There absolutely needs to be a list of things that a regular user can do, and it needs to be short. On a Linux system, that list consists of not much more than reading and writing in your home directory, viewing the contents of some other directories, and accessing some input/output devices. Everyone gets on fine, because nothing else is usually necessary. On an average day I might type, browse the web, and maybe do a little programming, none of which require access to the system's configuration.
An OS doesn't need to prevent users from doing stupid things, but it needs to know when it's a user doing a stupid thing and when it's someone (i.e. malware) pretending to be the user. If the user has full privelages, then so does anyone pretending to be the user, and as we've seen, viruses can infect a system from top to bottom. A simple solution is to limit a user's privelages but allow them to elevate when they need to. It works for *nix sytems and Apple computers.
That's not just one solution, that's *the* solution. UAC, as I understand it, works just fine. It's just that applications are trying to access things that they have no logical need to do, hence the prompts. Unfortunately, that seems to include many applications that are part of the system as well as third party apps. Basically, they should only require admin privelages at install time, and after that they should write only to the user's home directory (C:\Documents and Settings\YourNameHere under XP).
And maybe that's why they didn't add the feature. Also not that there's nothing stopping a virus, from cloning itself with another name and setting its clone up to run next. UAC prompts will indirectly make viruses easier to remove because they'll only be able to infect a single user -- it will be possible to log in as admin (so it won't be started up) and remove it more easily.
The issue is that Vista makes it way harder than it needs to be -- like the "seven popups to delete a shortcut" example floating around the 'net. Requiring admin privelages for things that really shouldn't require them. I'm sure it will get better as Vista nears its release date (whenever that rolls around), but I wouldn't want to put up with what I'm hearing about either, although it doesn't bother me a bit under Linux, which was designed to be used with non-admin accounts.
This is a Windows thing specifically, not a PC thing. My Linux laptop connects pretty much instantly, but the same laptop running Windows takes ages, if it connects at all.
I'll just reply to myself to clarify: given that what I said above is true downloading is still not necessarily right. I think that reading books in the store is just as wrong as downloading them. Or, if you prefer, downloading books is no worse than reading them in the store. Downloading == reading in the store (== photocopying, for everyone who mentioned that). In each case you're getting an author's hard work for nothing. It seems awfully inconsistent to be fine with one of the three, but not the others.
Exactly right. They're selling what's in the book. So why is it that reading it in the store is merely rude, but downloading it is a crime? They strike me as the same thing.* How can one be fine, but the other is wrong? Is it because downloading is easier? Is it just because it would be futile (and less profitable to the store) to make people pay to pick up a book in a bookstore?
* Not including uploading -- I speak only of the ones getting the content.
That's not an excuse for downloading any more than it's a condemnation of reading books in the store.
I didn't use photocopying as an analogy because most book stores don't contain copy machines, but yes, it's like that too. Ethically, reading it there and copying it to read later are the same thing. Copying is certainly more convenient if you want to read it again or don't like hanging out in bookstores, but in both cases you're getting the content without paying the author. You might say that photocopying it is different because you could share it, but it's not like you couldn't (with superhuman memory) repeat the story word for word to someone else. Is difficulty a measure of morality? It doesn't matter at all to me what the law says (for philosophical purposes; it matters a bit more when choosing my actions). Whether it's copyright infringment or just rude, I'm doing the same thing to the author. That's what I'll consider when deciding whether what I'm doing is right. Laws can't encompass everything that's wrong, and laws can prohibit things that shouldn't be.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the fourth isn't time. Time may be a dimension in the real world (although not the "fourth" since numbering them is arbitrary), but there's no requirement to include it in this simulation. Just like no one looks at a 2d graph and says, "Where's the third dimension?"
In this simulation, the extra two dimensions are spatial. They're just like the regular three, except they're two other directions. Naturally we can't depict them as a four dimensional being would see them, but we can represent them in a way that behaves like they would, which is enough for the purposes of this puzzle.
In fact, it's a pretty horrible idea to have barely computer-literate people downloading .exe installers off random web sites. Goodbye computer security: hello Bonzi Buddy! Package managers, in addition to being easy, give you one trusted source for your software.
I'm pretty sure it comes with mp3 support, but other than that, you're spot on.
Your kidding yourself if you believe that good old Hypothetical Grandma can install Windows XP and get her video drivers (preperatory to pwning some noobs in CS:S, one would imagine). I won't try to convince you that she could do it in Dapper either, but Grandma is not going to track down ATIs driver page, download the drivers, answer whatever questions come up in the install, reboot her computer, then get her game on. Grandma isn't dumb, but Grandma has no interest whatsoever in drivers (whatever those are). Grandma just wants here Counterstrike fix. It's going to be her tech-savvy grandson that gets the computer set up.
./configure ; make ; make install*. You're making Windows out to be a lot easier to use than it is. Windows doesn't even *have* a package manager, or an update service for every package installed through it. You get security updates, and occasionally a driver. Why complain about what happens under Linux when a package doesn't exist, but not complain about how Windows completely lacks the feature?
./Here'sMyInstaller.run -- exactly the same as double clicking setup.exe.
Maintaining a computer is not difficult, although is can be a little arcane. Anyone *can* learn to maintain them. It's whether you want to that counts. If you can't figure out how to work Linux, it's because you don't want to, not because it's too hard. "Too hard" just means that you don't know how to do it already, and you don't want to learn. Windows is just as "too hard" as most Linux distros to someone who doesn't know how to work it yet (like Grandma).
As a side note, it's never as simple as clicking setup.exe and letting it do all the work. Almost any installer asks for an install path. Drivers generally like to ask you about installing some support software. That's not much, but it's still something, and it will confuse Grandma as much as
* Actually, it often goes more like
"All they know is that this stuff works automatically in XP or OSX."
They may "know" it, but the rest of us know they're wrong. Every system needs configuration when you install new hardware or an OS. Most users just use whatever came on their computer; the work has been done for them, but it still had to be done. Windows won't magically work when you put new hardware in any more than Linux will.
"I think the Ubuntu team really needs to rethink leaving out MP3 decoders and regular codec support. Microsoft doesn't seem to have 'licensing issues' when they ship XP with those features, and neither does Apple."
Of course they don't, because they can license them. Who's going to pony up the cash to license them for an unlimited number of Ubuntu systems?
Your shock mirrors my own, but now that I think about it I do like cheese.
Didn't your current computer come with a keyboard? I don't think Das Keyboard is intended for the "stock keyboard" segment of the population.
What key is usually there?
Using two fingers is definitely your problem. It's pretty much impossible to touch type accurately like that. Touch typing relies on being oriented to the home row and having each finger assigned to specific keys. When you have to move your hands around to reach them all, it becomes really hard to know where you are.
I guess if the only way to test a user's privelages is to try to run then it's better than I thought. It would be unlikely that malware would happen to guess the right time to do its work.
I think MS's approach does ask for a password if you're not the admin, but I'm not sure.
If Linux and Mac OS aren't inherently more secure, then how is Microsoft's implementation of the same feature supposed to help security? They're all based on the idea of giving each user a "sandbox" that they're allowed to play in.
Now that I think about it, this seems like a bad idea. What's to prevent malware from hanging around and waiting for your credentials to be elevated, then 0wning your box? That's a five minute window by default, isn't it? Su seems a lot safer, since it doesn't have the stored password feature.
Actually, Microsoft's solution seems good. It's like su -c 'whatever.exe', and is exactly how I would have done it. It's just that unlike *nix systems, which have historically limited users' privelages, Windows hasn't, which is a pain in the ass with programs that aren't built with UAC in mind.
That doesn't scare me at all, so long as I can log in as a superuser whenever I need complete control.
A child (or parent) shouldn't be running antivirus. That should be started and run by the system, because it needs those privelages.
There absolutely needs to be a list of things that a regular user can do, and it needs to be short. On a Linux system, that list consists of not much more than reading and writing in your home directory, viewing the contents of some other directories, and accessing some input/output devices. Everyone gets on fine, because nothing else is usually necessary. On an average day I might type, browse the web, and maybe do a little programming, none of which require access to the system's configuration.
An OS doesn't need to prevent users from doing stupid things, but it needs to know when it's a user doing a stupid thing and when it's someone (i.e. malware) pretending to be the user. If the user has full privelages, then so does anyone pretending to be the user, and as we've seen, viruses can infect a system from top to bottom. A simple solution is to limit a user's privelages but allow them to elevate when they need to. It works for *nix sytems and Apple computers.
That's not just one solution, that's *the* solution. UAC, as I understand it, works just fine. It's just that applications are trying to access things that they have no logical need to do, hence the prompts. Unfortunately, that seems to include many applications that are part of the system as well as third party apps. Basically, they should only require admin privelages at install time, and after that they should write only to the user's home directory (C:\Documents and Settings\YourNameHere under XP).
And maybe that's why they didn't add the feature. Also not that there's nothing stopping a virus, from cloning itself with another name and setting its clone up to run next. UAC prompts will indirectly make viruses easier to remove because they'll only be able to infect a single user -- it will be possible to log in as admin (so it won't be started up) and remove it more easily.
Your screen thanks you for your sobriety.
As I recall, just putting fonts into the font folder will install them.
I looks like you've added a few words to many to your dictionary.
Linux only takes four. FTW!
The issue is that Vista makes it way harder than it needs to be -- like the "seven popups to delete a shortcut" example floating around the 'net. Requiring admin privelages for things that really shouldn't require them. I'm sure it will get better as Vista nears its release date (whenever that rolls around), but I wouldn't want to put up with what I'm hearing about either, although it doesn't bother me a bit under Linux, which was designed to be used with non-admin accounts.
This is a Windows thing specifically, not a PC thing. My Linux laptop connects pretty much instantly, but the same laptop running Windows takes ages, if it connects at all.
I'll just reply to myself to clarify: given that what I said above is true downloading is still not necessarily right. I think that reading books in the store is just as wrong as downloading them. Or, if you prefer, downloading books is no worse than reading them in the store. Downloading == reading in the store (== photocopying, for everyone who mentioned that). In each case you're getting an author's hard work for nothing. It seems awfully inconsistent to be fine with one of the three, but not the others.
What's the difference? Is morality a matter of convenience?
Exactly right. They're selling what's in the book. So why is it that reading it in the store is merely rude, but downloading it is a crime? They strike me as the same thing.* How can one be fine, but the other is wrong? Is it because downloading is easier? Is it just because it would be futile (and less profitable to the store) to make people pay to pick up a book in a bookstore?
* Not including uploading -- I speak only of the ones getting the content.
That's not an excuse for downloading any more than it's a condemnation of reading books in the store.
I didn't use photocopying as an analogy because most book stores don't contain copy machines, but yes, it's like that too. Ethically, reading it there and copying it to read later are the same thing. Copying is certainly more convenient if you want to read it again or don't like hanging out in bookstores, but in both cases you're getting the content without paying the author. You might say that photocopying it is different because you could share it, but it's not like you couldn't (with superhuman memory) repeat the story word for word to someone else. Is difficulty a measure of morality? It doesn't matter at all to me what the law says (for philosophical purposes; it matters a bit more when choosing my actions). Whether it's copyright infringment or just rude, I'm doing the same thing to the author. That's what I'll consider when deciding whether what I'm doing is right. Laws can't encompass everything that's wrong, and laws can prohibit things that shouldn't be.