So explain again why I have to drag another platform (Windows with Visual C++) into my toolchain when perfectly good IDEs are available for the native Linux environment.
That is a phenomenally stupid question. Do you ask this sort of thing every time a new feature is added to some software that you don't use? Because I hate to tell you this but the overwhelming ratio of software that you currently use and that which you don't have installed means you will spend the majority of your time complaining about improvements that don't matter to you.
For people who use Visual Studio, this feature adds an extra platform that can be targeted. It allows people to use the IDE with which they are familiar or simply prefer to use, but it doesn't mean that you have to take it as a personal insult. Improving software and playing nice with other operating systems is supposed to be a good thing, right?
I think they need to stop charging for VS otherwise they may get.. well eclipsed.
They have had free versions of Visual Studio for a some years now, and according to the comments at the bottom of the article this Linux remote compilation works with the community (free) version too.
Familiarity. I've been using Windows since Windows 3.0, so I'm very familiar with the interface and the way the systems works behind the scenes. Over the same time I have used Unix, FreeBSD, and quite a lot of Linux distributions. Because there was such a variety in the *nix side of things, all of which worked differently from other similar operating systems, I actually find that I am quicker getting stuff done in Windows. Windows 8 nearly ruined this with its stupid modern UI, but I have been able to ignore most of that and stick with the old desktop.
It's what I use at work, so programs that I use (and write) at work can also be used on my home systems. Also, when buying software (especially games), Windows is the better supported platform. For open source stuff, the situation is reversed, but I most of the software I use also has Windows versions too. I am gradually moving my standard selection of programs to cross-platform versions so I can one day migrate from Windows. The only reason why I would do this is because I don't trust the direction that Microsoft is taking these days.
PowerShell. This is one of the things that keeps me on Windows; I just love PowerShell. Sure, they released an open-source, cross-platform version, but to get the best out of the shell you really need to run it on Windows.
Despite what you say, security is definitely good enough. Since the release of Service Pack 2 for XP, every version of Windows has gained more security features. I haven't had any malware problems since I upgraded to XP (which happened after SP2 was released). It helps that I have always used limited user accounts (like this article says). Of course, I don't go running random programs that get emailed to me, but then I also wouldn't do that on Linux either because I don't just assume that it is that much more secure than Windows.
That's nice, but the Swedish Chef predates Supreme Court Nominee Bork by a decade. The Muppet Show had a greater worldwide impact than some parochial bit of politics.
You fucking moron. Standard users don't have admin credentials. OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO TYPE ADMIN CREDENTIALS IN.
Did you even read the part that I quoted from the grandparent, which said that you didn't need to type the password in? Obviously not. It's kind of weird that you call me a moron because I am correct.
That's all well but why would you want Windows ? Assuming you have the choice.
Because despite what people around here say, Windows is simply good enough. I have a mix of different operating systems, and have no problems switching between them because they all offer the same basic facilities.
But, about half the applications I use in Windows require administrator rights to work.
You should probably name and shame those applications then, because they are the problem; not Windows.
I would add an extra reason to your list of why some programs require administrator rights: stupidity. The accounts software that we used for many years required administrator rights to run. It annoyed me because I could not see why it would be required. Upon inspection, I found a *.MANIFEST file in the install directory. It had a setting of something like userLevel=highestAvailable. I changed this to asInvoker and it no longer gave a UAC warning. It worked perfectly without those additional settings.
There is no need to shame them because they fixed this in a later version. But how stupid was it to insist that your accounting computers were more vulnerable to malware than they needed to be.
I'm sorry, but I think that is completely wrong. Exactly how does Windows starting with maximum permissions actually manifest as a real world example?
If you start with a basic account, you don't have to whittle away its rights; it is low by default. If you want it to be a higher access account then you add it to the Administrators group. Then it inherits the additional permissions. This is the opposite of what you described.
Where you might be getting confused is that the permissions system allows for both Allow and Deny settings, but it is extremely rare to see Deny being used. For an example of how Deny works, if you wanted to create an account that could install software, but not edit the firewall settings, you would add the Administrators group to the account and then Deny edit rights to the firewall. Deny is only useful AFTER you have raised the account's permissions from the default low settings.
When you make the decision to use windows, you are accepting that you are vulnerable.
But if you can make yourself 94% less vulnerable, it makes sense to do this. I wouldn't run as root/administrator as my general purpose account on ANY operating system. I also would not assume that ANY operating system would make me invulnerable.
if apps had rights to there own folder / reg keys then there would be less of an need for admin.
This feature was implemented with Vista. To work around those badly written programs that assume that they can write to their installation folder or LOCAL_MACHINE registry, Microsoft implemented File and Registry Virtualization. If an application opens a file in read/write mode under Program Files, then a copy of that file is made in %APPDATA% and this file is used instead.
This was only intended for old programs, and it only works for 32bit applications. It is assumed that 64bit applications are modern enough to know where they should place configuration files and such.
How do you run a program as an administrator with a different account in windows 10?
If it is on the start menu right click on it, then on the pop-up menu choose "More->Run as administrator". If the program is an icon on the desktop or an executable file then right click on it and choose "Run as administrator". If you always want to run that particular program as an administrator, then right click on the desktop icon or program file and choose Properties. Under the Compatibility tab, select "Run this program as an administrator".
What they're trying to say is that there are situations where this will not work, where Windows will not ask you for the password, but just fail instead, thus concluding that for some things your account MUST have admin rights.
And what are those unspecified situations? Because I can't think of anything right now, and especially not something that I would need to run often enough to purposefully undermine the security of my system by running as an administrator account all the time..
That was an exaggeration for emphasis. I could be more specific.. On a work laptop, I can write to my 'c:\Users\\Documents' folder, but if I try to access it via the various shortcuts on the left of the file manager, I am denied access. No UAC, even though I have the password for that. The permissions on the thing vary based on the path you access it by? That's messed up.
That's not an account type issue; something is seriously borked on your system. That doesn't happen normally even if you are a standard user. It sounds like the user folders have been moved, but the icons haven't been updated to reflect this. (It's possible that something like OneDrive has fiddled with the folder locations).
I assume that you are talking about the Quick Access section. If I were you I would right click on those folders and select "Unpin from Quick Access". Then browse to the folders and click on "Pin to Quick Access" in the Home ribbon to recreate the list. That should fix the problem.
No you're full of crap, or you're just dumb. It's one or the other.
That's very rude, and especially funny since you are wrong.
The point that was made was that you can do it if you keep switching accounts, which is cumbersome, but the convenient way of always using your regular account and only identifying as admin when needed does not work.
You don't need to switch accounts. If you are changing a system setting or installing software as a standard user, the system prompts for a password. You do not need to log out of your standard account, you just type in the password and keep working as if you had logged in as an administrator account. It does actually work, and only takes a second to type in the password. Perhaps you should actually try it yourself since you obviously don't know how the system works.
Too much of the system still requires administrative rights for it to be viable.
That is utter nonsense. It is such a shame to see this modded as informative, because it is completely misleading.
I have use standard accounts since Windows NT 4.0. Now that was a pain, but every single version of Windows has made the process easier than the last. The biggest improvement was the UAC that prompts for the admin password when needed. Some badly written software can still cause problems like programmatically checking that the current user is an administrator and giving an error message if not. This means the UAC doesn't get a chance to kick in.
But those programs are few and far between, and you can usually manually launch the program as admin by holding the shift key down and right-clicking on the program (or just change the icon's compatibility settings to run as administrator if the program has been installed). It is incredibly rare that you ever need to actually log in using the administrator account. Temporary elevation is usually enough (the equivalent of *nix sudo).
Why does windows ask for the admin password to get rid of an icon?
Because those icons are stored in the shared desktop folder (default: C:\Users\Public\Desktop). Any file or icon here will be visible on the desktop of every user. If you shared a computer with other users, then you might not want the other people to be able to edit the icons that appear on your desktop because they could alter them to run malicious software instead. If you ran a program where you needed to login with a password, then they could write their own mock version of the software that logs the passwords and change the desktop icon to run it instead.
If you don't share the computer with other people, then you could grant write permission on the shared desktop folder to all users. Then you could delete and update automatically created icons to your heart's content.
I run with admin rights on my Windows 10 machine because it's the default and it's a pain in the neck to run without. "Sorry you don't have permissions to set the clock".
Have you also turned off UAC prompts? Because when I set the time it prompts me for the admin password and it works fine. I don't ever see the message that I don't have permissions to set the clock; I just see the icon on the button to set the time which shows that it will perform an elevation (prompt for password) to run it.
Blah-blah. Around 10 people age 30 to 65 played with my Vive. Nobody felt nauseous.
Ah yes, the old "none of my small group of friends has this problem therefore it doesn't exist". By the same logic, I've never met your group of friends, therefore they don't exist. That would explain why none of them have ever suffered nausea.
If you aren't wow'd by it then your lack of imagination/wonder is what I'd consider def not normal.
Considering the low sales of VR games that is being reported here, it seems my "lack of imagination" is actually quite normal. It really doesn't matter how impressive the experience is if it makes you feel nauseous playing it for too long. It doesn't matter how impressive it is if it is priced so absurdly high that it is beyond the reach of most people.
And it doesn't matter how impressive it is if the games are actually fairly casual, bland experiences. Developers are finding that VR seems to work best when the player isn't moving around the environment much. So they will sit you in a vehicle (or run you on rails somehow) or have you teleport to move. The limitations that they are finding restrict the kinds of games that can be played. This isn't the Matrix.
This doesn't mean that some people won't like it, nor that I won't end up with a VR device myself. As my name suggests, I do like gadgets. But this won't be anything other than a niche market and it won't spell the end of traditional gaming.
How can anyone compare VR with the failure of 3D TV? 3D TV failed because who wants to wear cumbersome glasses that prevent you from being social with others? 3D TV is expensive, and causes headaches and eye-strain for some people. There wasn't any killer content to push people to 3D TV that was overwhelmingly good enough to overcome the disadvantages; a lot of 3D content was perfectly watchable in 2D. 3D TV was just an expensive novelty.
But with VR... well admittedly it has the cumbersome glasses that prevent you from being social with others, and is expensive, and causes eye-strain and nausea, and has no killer app. But can you say that it's just a novelty?.... Hmmm. OK, maybe they are the same after all.
How do you do that in Windows? I never saw any ability to do firewalling by network adaptor.
You can limit any firewall rule to work on one or more interface types on the Advanced tab of the rule's properties. This isn't quite as good as specifying the adaptor if you have really complicated networks, but it does the trick for 99.9% of cases. The three interface types are (as copied from the help file for the firewall):
Local area network
The rule applies only to communications sent through wired local area network (LAN) connections that you have configured on the computer.
Remote access
The rule applies only to communications sent through remote access, such as a virtual private network (VPN) connection or dial-up connection that you have configured on the computer.
Wireless
The rule applies only to communications sent through wireless network adapters that you have configured on the computer.
So for my example, if I don't want Steam to download updates through my work's VPN then I would turn off the remote access interface on its rule. This does not change the routing, so if I have connected the VPN then Steam simply stops being able to access the Internet. This suits me fine, but if you wanted Steam to continue downloading with the local network while the VPN was active then you would have to fiddle with the routing. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way of doing this on a per-application basis. You would have to set the routing for the Steam servers by IP address.
When the VPN disconnects, any application that was only allowed to access the remote access interface would similarly lose the ability access the net, preventing those pesky leaks. This is not as easy as you described on Linux, as you can't change the default settings for the interface. This means you have to manually change each rule to disable the local area network interface to ensure everything has to go through the VPN. This isn't so bad, because Powershell comes with a lot of firewall manipulation commands. I haven't needed to use them yet, but I do see interface types mentioned when I did a man *firewall* (which shows all help topics containing the name firewall). You can use this to make a bulk change and then manually set the VPN rules to allow the LAN interface.
But how does the hardware firewall block specific applications from accessing the Internet?
By granting internet access on a per application basis with the software firewall, I don't have to worry about bugs or unintended consequences of some program have network access that I didn't expect. My media player only ever plays files from my computer, so I have never needed to grant it permission to talk to arbitrary servers, so this trick would never have affected me. It's a great way of neutering malware and backdoors/telemetry in programs.
Slashdot Mirror
So explain again why I have to drag another platform (Windows with Visual C++) into my toolchain when perfectly good IDEs are available for the native Linux environment.
That is a phenomenally stupid question. Do you ask this sort of thing every time a new feature is added to some software that you don't use? Because I hate to tell you this but the overwhelming ratio of software that you currently use and that which you don't have installed means you will spend the majority of your time complaining about improvements that don't matter to you.
For people who use Visual Studio, this feature adds an extra platform that can be targeted. It allows people to use the IDE with which they are familiar or simply prefer to use, but it doesn't mean that you have to take it as a personal insult. Improving software and playing nice with other operating systems is supposed to be a good thing, right?
I think they need to stop charging for VS otherwise they may get .. well eclipsed.
They have had free versions of Visual Studio for a some years now, and according to the comments at the bottom of the article this Linux remote compilation works with the community (free) version too.
Familiarity. I've been using Windows since Windows 3.0, so I'm very familiar with the interface and the way the systems works behind the scenes. Over the same time I have used Unix, FreeBSD, and quite a lot of Linux distributions. Because there was such a variety in the *nix side of things, all of which worked differently from other similar operating systems, I actually find that I am quicker getting stuff done in Windows. Windows 8 nearly ruined this with its stupid modern UI, but I have been able to ignore most of that and stick with the old desktop.
It's what I use at work, so programs that I use (and write) at work can also be used on my home systems. Also, when buying software (especially games), Windows is the better supported platform. For open source stuff, the situation is reversed, but I most of the software I use also has Windows versions too. I am gradually moving my standard selection of programs to cross-platform versions so I can one day migrate from Windows. The only reason why I would do this is because I don't trust the direction that Microsoft is taking these days.
PowerShell. This is one of the things that keeps me on Windows; I just love PowerShell. Sure, they released an open-source, cross-platform version, but to get the best out of the shell you really need to run it on Windows.
Despite what you say, security is definitely good enough. Since the release of Service Pack 2 for XP, every version of Windows has gained more security features. I haven't had any malware problems since I upgraded to XP (which happened after SP2 was released). It helps that I have always used limited user accounts (like this article says). Of course, I don't go running random programs that get emailed to me, but then I also wouldn't do that on Linux either because I don't just assume that it is that much more secure than Windows.
That's nice, but the Swedish Chef predates Supreme Court Nominee Bork by a decade. The Muppet Show had a greater worldwide impact than some parochial bit of politics.
You fucking moron. Standard users don't have admin credentials. OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO TYPE ADMIN CREDENTIALS IN.
Did you even read the part that I quoted from the grandparent, which said that you didn't need to type the password in? Obviously not. It's kind of weird that you call me a moron because I am correct.
That's all well but why would you want Windows ? Assuming you have the choice.
Because despite what people around here say, Windows is simply good enough. I have a mix of different operating systems, and have no problems switching between them because they all offer the same basic facilities.
But, about half the applications I use in Windows require administrator rights to work.
You should probably name and shame those applications then, because they are the problem; not Windows.
I would add an extra reason to your list of why some programs require administrator rights: stupidity. The accounts software that we used for many years required administrator rights to run. It annoyed me because I could not see why it would be required. Upon inspection, I found a *.MANIFEST file in the install directory. It had a setting of something like userLevel=highestAvailable. I changed this to asInvoker and it no longer gave a UAC warning. It worked perfectly without those additional settings.
There is no need to shame them because they fixed this in a later version. But how stupid was it to insist that your accounting computers were more vulnerable to malware than they needed to be.
I'm sorry, but I think that is completely wrong. Exactly how does Windows starting with maximum permissions actually manifest as a real world example?
If you start with a basic account, you don't have to whittle away its rights; it is low by default. If you want it to be a higher access account then you add it to the Administrators group. Then it inherits the additional permissions. This is the opposite of what you described.
Where you might be getting confused is that the permissions system allows for both Allow and Deny settings, but it is extremely rare to see Deny being used. For an example of how Deny works, if you wanted to create an account that could install software, but not edit the firewall settings, you would add the Administrators group to the account and then Deny edit rights to the firewall. Deny is only useful AFTER you have raised the account's permissions from the default low settings.
When you make the decision to use windows, you are accepting that you are vulnerable.
But if you can make yourself 94% less vulnerable, it makes sense to do this. I wouldn't run as root/administrator as my general purpose account on ANY operating system. I also would not assume that ANY operating system would make me invulnerable.
if apps had rights to there own folder / reg keys then there would be less of an need for admin.
This feature was implemented with Vista. To work around those badly written programs that assume that they can write to their installation folder or LOCAL_MACHINE registry, Microsoft implemented File and Registry Virtualization. If an application opens a file in read/write mode under Program Files, then a copy of that file is made in %APPDATA% and this file is used instead.
This was only intended for old programs, and it only works for 32bit applications. It is assumed that 64bit applications are modern enough to know where they should place configuration files and such.
How do you run a program as an administrator with a different account in windows 10?
If it is on the start menu right click on it, then on the pop-up menu choose "More->Run as administrator". If the program is an icon on the desktop or an executable file then right click on it and choose "Run as administrator". If you always want to run that particular program as an administrator, then right click on the desktop icon or program file and choose Properties. Under the Compatibility tab, select "Run this program as an administrator".
What they're trying to say is that there are situations where this will not work, where Windows will not ask you for the password, but just fail instead, thus concluding that for some things your account MUST have admin rights.
And what are those unspecified situations? Because I can't think of anything right now, and especially not something that I would need to run often enough to purposefully undermine the security of my system by running as an administrator account all the time..
You just have to click the fucking yes button, you don't even need to enter your password.
That only works if you have an administrator account. Standard users do have to type in a password.
Or you could run with admin rights.
But that would be stupid considering how vulnerable your system would be (given the topic of this /. story).
That was an exaggeration for emphasis. I could be more specific.. On a work laptop, I can write to my 'c:\Users\\Documents' folder, but if I try to access it via the various shortcuts on the left of the file manager, I am denied access. No UAC, even though I have the password for that. The permissions on the thing vary based on the path you access it by? That's messed up.
That's not an account type issue; something is seriously borked on your system. That doesn't happen normally even if you are a standard user. It sounds like the user folders have been moved, but the icons haven't been updated to reflect this. (It's possible that something like OneDrive has fiddled with the folder locations).
I assume that you are talking about the Quick Access section. If I were you I would right click on those folders and select "Unpin from Quick Access". Then browse to the folders and click on "Pin to Quick Access" in the Home ribbon to recreate the list. That should fix the problem.
No you're full of crap, or you're just dumb. It's one or the other.
That's very rude, and especially funny since you are wrong.
The point that was made was that you can do it if you keep switching accounts, which is cumbersome, but the convenient way of always using your regular account and only identifying as admin when needed does not work.
You don't need to switch accounts. If you are changing a system setting or installing software as a standard user, the system prompts for a password. You do not need to log out of your standard account, you just type in the password and keep working as if you had logged in as an administrator account. It does actually work, and only takes a second to type in the password. Perhaps you should actually try it yourself since you obviously don't know how the system works.
Maybe it's better now but knowing MS it will not have changed much since 2000 when I tried using my computer as a normal user.
What? Have you not heard about the User Account Control (UAC) that was implemented with Vista? It does exactly what you described happens on the Mac:
It only asks for administrator passwords when doing administrative things like installing programs and changing global settings.
Yep, that's exactly what Windows does. They really have done work on Windows in the last 17 years!
Too much of the system still requires administrative rights for it to be viable.
That is utter nonsense. It is such a shame to see this modded as informative, because it is completely misleading.
I have use standard accounts since Windows NT 4.0. Now that was a pain, but every single version of Windows has made the process easier than the last. The biggest improvement was the UAC that prompts for the admin password when needed. Some badly written software can still cause problems like programmatically checking that the current user is an administrator and giving an error message if not. This means the UAC doesn't get a chance to kick in.
But those programs are few and far between, and you can usually manually launch the program as admin by holding the shift key down and right-clicking on the program (or just change the icon's compatibility settings to run as administrator if the program has been installed). It is incredibly rare that you ever need to actually log in using the administrator account. Temporary elevation is usually enough (the equivalent of *nix sudo).
Why does windows ask for the admin password to get rid of an icon?
Because those icons are stored in the shared desktop folder (default: C:\Users\Public\Desktop). Any file or icon here will be visible on the desktop of every user. If you shared a computer with other users, then you might not want the other people to be able to edit the icons that appear on your desktop because they could alter them to run malicious software instead. If you ran a program where you needed to login with a password, then they could write their own mock version of the software that logs the passwords and change the desktop icon to run it instead.
If you don't share the computer with other people, then you could grant write permission on the shared desktop folder to all users. Then you could delete and update automatically created icons to your heart's content.
I run with admin rights on my Windows 10 machine because it's the default and it's a pain in the neck to run without. "Sorry you don't have permissions to set the clock".
Have you also turned off UAC prompts? Because when I set the time it prompts me for the admin password and it works fine. I don't ever see the message that I don't have permissions to set the clock; I just see the icon on the button to set the time which shows that it will perform an elevation (prompt for password) to run it.
Blah-blah. Around 10 people age 30 to 65 played with my Vive. Nobody felt nauseous.
Ah yes, the old "none of my small group of friends has this problem therefore it doesn't exist". By the same logic, I've never met your group of friends, therefore they don't exist. That would explain why none of them have ever suffered nausea.
If you aren't wow'd by it then your lack of imagination/wonder is what I'd consider def not normal.
Considering the low sales of VR games that is being reported here, it seems my "lack of imagination" is actually quite normal. It really doesn't matter how impressive the experience is if it makes you feel nauseous playing it for too long. It doesn't matter how impressive it is if it is priced so absurdly high that it is beyond the reach of most people.
And it doesn't matter how impressive it is if the games are actually fairly casual, bland experiences. Developers are finding that VR seems to work best when the player isn't moving around the environment much. So they will sit you in a vehicle (or run you on rails somehow) or have you teleport to move. The limitations that they are finding restrict the kinds of games that can be played. This isn't the Matrix.
This doesn't mean that some people won't like it, nor that I won't end up with a VR device myself. As my name suggests, I do like gadgets. But this won't be anything other than a niche market and it won't spell the end of traditional gaming.
How can anyone compare VR with the failure of 3D TV? 3D TV failed because who wants to wear cumbersome glasses that prevent you from being social with others? 3D TV is expensive, and causes headaches and eye-strain for some people. There wasn't any killer content to push people to 3D TV that was overwhelmingly good enough to overcome the disadvantages; a lot of 3D content was perfectly watchable in 2D. 3D TV was just an expensive novelty.
But with VR... well admittedly it has the cumbersome glasses that prevent you from being social with others, and is expensive, and causes eye-strain and nausea, and has no killer app. But can you say that it's just a novelty? .... Hmmm. OK, maybe they are the same after all.
How do you do that in Windows? I never saw any ability to do firewalling by network adaptor.
You can limit any firewall rule to work on one or more interface types on the Advanced tab of the rule's properties. This isn't quite as good as specifying the adaptor if you have really complicated networks, but it does the trick for 99.9% of cases. The three interface types are (as copied from the help file for the firewall):
So for my example, if I don't want Steam to download updates through my work's VPN then I would turn off the remote access interface on its rule. This does not change the routing, so if I have connected the VPN then Steam simply stops being able to access the Internet. This suits me fine, but if you wanted Steam to continue downloading with the local network while the VPN was active then you would have to fiddle with the routing. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way of doing this on a per-application basis. You would have to set the routing for the Steam servers by IP address.
When the VPN disconnects, any application that was only allowed to access the remote access interface would similarly lose the ability access the net, preventing those pesky leaks. This is not as easy as you described on Linux, as you can't change the default settings for the interface. This means you have to manually change each rule to disable the local area network interface to ensure everything has to go through the VPN. This isn't so bad, because Powershell comes with a lot of firewall manipulation commands. I haven't needed to use them yet, but I do see interface types mentioned when I did a man *firewall* (which shows all help topics containing the name firewall). You can use this to make a bulk change and then manually set the VPN rules to allow the LAN interface.
But how does the hardware firewall block specific applications from accessing the Internet?
By granting internet access on a per application basis with the software firewall, I don't have to worry about bugs or unintended consequences of some program have network access that I didn't expect. My media player only ever plays files from my computer, so I have never needed to grant it permission to talk to arbitrary servers, so this trick would never have affected me. It's a great way of neutering malware and backdoors/telemetry in programs.