Non-denial #1. Nothing stops you from downloading a BSD-compliant application into/Users/UnknowingFool and executing it.
Bahahaha. So this is your deflection again. You brought up how Microsoft cannot know which applications are installed yet when pointed out that they are in full control of this you try to deflect that criticism by talking about OS X and Linux. In Linux and OS X (derived from BSD), there are distinct separations of user applications and system applications. While a superuser can always do things against the convention in any system, regular users cannot. Whereas MS has never really enforced any convention for decades.
Yes, Linux and Mac OSX also do not know for sure what programs are installed in the OS. No, it's not a red herring -- it's an explanation for why scanning the filesystem would be necessary under all three OSes if you want to ensure that no incompatible program is stranded upon an OS upgrade. Otherwise you're taking the OS's installed application list at its word and that list is not guaranteed to be complete.
Again a red herring. The complaint that you made was on Microsoft. Again you made this complaint. And now you try to deflect it by mentioning other OS.You can also complain that Commodores never knew where programs were located too.
Any application held in local storage and executable as such is "installed." You're merely fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.,
Bahahahaha,. See here you are trying to change the meaning of the word "installed" because you have been shown up not to know what you are talking about. First, back to what the OP said. He had an Netware installation program in a folder. It was a very old copy of that program, and I don't even know if it could run because Win 10 complained about the compatibility. Second by your definition, almost everything downloaded is "installed" to where "installed" does not mean anything different than "downloaded". Windows force downloaded Windows 10 installation program on my Win 8.1 computer; Win 10 is "installed" even though it has never been run. Funny, it still says Win 8.1 when I look but according to you Win 10 has been "installed". Maybe you should tell MS that as it keeps bothering me to "install" Win 10.
Yes I have, and nothing prevents you from downloading an application file into an unusual folder and executing it
Er? You do know what installing an application entails in OS X right?
There is not enforcement of applications being put into certain folders, it is a convention, just as it is a convention upon installation to list programs within the "Programs and Features" registry entries in Windows so that they can be uninstalled.
So let me understand you correctly: To address your own point that Windows doesn't know for sure what Programs are installed in their own OS and that is something they could fix, you then try to bring up OS X and Linux as a red herring. The last time I checked all my complaints about my Honda should not be directed towards Toyota. Also you failed to acknowledge when pointed out that OS X and Linux do in fact does this better.
That does not change my point, which that the installer could be run from that location and the user might complain about the fact that it could not. The installer is an application as much as any other.
Then that makes your entire point irrelevant. The poster was complaining about something specific which was about Win 10 updater finding a software that it deemed "incompatible" even though it wasn't actually installed.
What a coinky-dink, with no connected to your posts from yesterday at all..
Translation: You are triggered when someone responds to your posts pointing out how foolish they are.
Heck, 2017 was a great year for Linux, only 400 security bugs.. lol
You do know that if you are basing security on the number of bugs in CVE: Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 combined to have more 400 bugs combined in 2017. That doesn't include all other versions of Windows like Server 2012 (235), Server 2016(252), Win 7(229),etc. But please feel free to laugh at Microsoft.
As if Linux or Max OS X are any better in that regard.
Have you used OS X? Applications that are installed are in folder called Applications. As for Linux there is the distinct separation between system and user applications with applications being put into certain folders.
The software doesn't have to be "actually installed" in order to be run, and if you're using a Windows 10 client as a network drive server for incompatible versions of windows, you deserve any difficulties that you get.
That's not what the poster said. He said specifically that the Win 10 install refused to work because another software's installer application was located in a folder. It had not been run. Win 10 objected to the mere presence of a file that didn't affect the operation of the machine.
Knock off the stalking behavior - it's creepy.
Jeez you're full of yourself. You posted something and object to being responded is what you're saying. If I had responded to every thing you said you might have a point.
Well, you can't trust the "Programs and Features" listing to include all of the software operable on the machine . ..
Well maybe Microsoft should fix that since they created the OS.
The general error nonsense is maddening and stupid, but the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense.
It makes it less reasonable in my opinion. It means I can't update a current Windows computer to 10 that is being used as a network drive for other software because MS finds incompatible even though none of the software is actually installed.
So you didn't read the applications yet are sure what they don't say. . . That's like my new novel coming out who tells you who really killed Kennedy or not. You'll have to read it even though I'm not writing a novel at all.
If you have to log into a graphical environment on your server to install things, then either you're not a very good admin or the software you're using isn't very good.
You do know we are talking about Windows Server, right which was the point of this entire thread and post? I don't control that Microsoft has put in a GUI into their Server software. With Server 2016 you can opt to install the GUI but previous versions has it installed by default.
For the former: Learn CLI. I'm not trying to gatekeep or be a smug bastard, it's simply a superior way to manage machines.
I would advise you do so the same and read the thread to learn what we are talking about before you put in your irrelevant points. Also you don't know what I know. I do administer Linux machines as well as Windows one.
For the latter, that sucks. I'm sorry. But maybe you should use your remote tools to move the PDF to your local system rather than increase your server's attack surface by installing a viewer for an incredibly over-complicated file format.
That would be great if I used remote tools. You do also know that turning on RDP on a Windows Server increases the attack surface? For an admin it is harder when RDP is off as we have to be physically logged into the machine to do things like install new software.
I've never made either the statements (#1 nor #2) in your post which I am replying to,
When you posted: "My teenage kids debate it with their friends. They're completely joking and so are their friends. It's used to make obscure physics references.The newsworthy guy with the rocket recently, he was completely joking. So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." You are indeed admitting that you don't know any Flat Earthers. How can you know that the people who post videos are in fact joking? You can't know. This is my point #1.
So when you posted this: "To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate..." What were you trying to say? You were saying I didn't know anything even though I do know actual Flat Earthers and you do not. This is point #2.
How about you try quoting what I've actually posted in this topic and then explaining why you disagree with it, rather then attempting to put words in my mouth and then claiming I'm the one who is being illogical.
I did above. Please reference what you wrote. However instead of admitting #1 and #2 you got defensive when it was #1 and #2 you were saying all along.
I definitely stand by my original claim that your username is very appropriate for your statements, as demonstrated by the way you're trying to argue here.
I see you are indeed doubling down on your own ignorance. You cannot possibly know that any or all of the people who posted the videos are joking. And you cannot possibly know who I know. Yet you won't ever admit this, will you?
Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.
You do know that there are these things called rackmounted monitors and keyboards which allow you to directly access a server on a rack, right? They are designed to be 1U and stow away when not needed. If you don't I would have to wonder when is the last time you actually visited a server room.
It's really wonderful how you keep deliberately missing the point.
It's interesting how you don't seem to understand how things work on Windows servers.
The server's role here is to make the files available, and regardless of what the file type is, there is no requirement for it to have a client application installed.
You mean besides the fact that if the user isn't remote but is actually directly logged into a server. That was the very first thing that I said.
. If you think otherwise, then apparently Microsoft has damaged your brain to the point of being unable to use a file browser.
Again that only works if you simply ignore the scenario presented.
So in our hypothetical situation of needing to view a PDF on a remote server, what exactly is the problem with opening that folder in Explorer and using your local application to view said document?
Other than that doesn't work if you don't have a local PDF application installed? Or the ability to install a PDF viewer due to admin privileges? Or the ability to get to download one because the server is firewalled from the Internet? That's the chief complaint is that there is no default reader on Windows Server before 2016. Even then you need to use Edge.
Are we suggesting that one might have administrative access but not file access?
Not the only access. Having a PDF viewer application would be helpful.
If you need to edit a bitmap on a remote server, would you install Photoshop as well?
The ability to read a PDF which is a universal document is an entirely different need than to edit a bitmap.
How about TeX files, or OpenOffice?
Again reading TeX files which are not universally used for documentation is a different requirement than PDF files as TeX is generally used for technical papers. But to your point most *nix servers require TeX or LaTeX to be installed to read them.
This is the sort of problem which would only ever occur to Windows admins, and it doesn't speak well to either the ecosystem or the adminstrators.
I would imagine Windows admins are the only ones who would have access to Windows Servers when trying to do their work which the OP was complaining about.
In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.
Instead you complain about other people who have real problems because you don't have the same problem. Also you didn't think that real world scenarios exist merely because they don't exist for you.
The extraordinary claim here is the following : Someone keeping things secret from their boss (the public is , directly or indirectly depending on your point of view, the boss of FBI) is being transparent, fair, honest, constitutional, and ethical.
There is a difference between it's not being reported in detail and "it's secret". So did you look the applications made by the local police and FBI to condemn the building? Did you look at their demolition permits? Did you look at any and all court orders? No. You assumed it's secret because you don't know.
If they had the details recorded under NDA or something similar for public institutions, by known unrelated experts in the field, and submitted the details to a court to get the demolition order, there could have been the justification of preventing idiots in the public from creating a ludicrously easy but highly dangerous substance.
Again you not knowing details doesn't mean it is secret.
No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.
I assume he means 2012 R2 which was released in 2014.
BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.
So you don't deny that before Server 2016 it's a problem. You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?
Which shows a complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS. That assumes the scenario that I only remote login to the server and I never have actual access to it. For example the installation is on a CD/USB, it's much easier to stick into the server than upload it to a network share then download it.
The second part of why that is silly is that after I unpack/unzip the installation files on the server. I have to do the same thing on my machine just to read the documentation on the installation process. Or transfer them my client machine." That also doesn't take into account if there are issues and I have to look at additional information written in PDF from the vendor.
Do to try to weasel out of admitting your flaws in logic by trying to impose conditions that didn't exist until you made them up? If I said scientists overwhelmingly support climate change would you say your buddies don't support it so not all scientists support it. If I asked what fields of science they work in, then you'd admit they have no science backgrounds but read science news stories but they're "scientists". Because rather than admit you don't really know Flat Eathers and at the same time you can't possibly know who or what I know you made an assertion about what I know.
1. Flat Earthers are all joking
2. I don't know Flat Eathers
You cannot prove #1 and you certainly cannot know #2. Yet you are certain about both.
[sarcasm]Heaven forbid someone should open and read a PDF document on a server. I mean it's not like everyone uses that format being so obscure. Every installation manual I've used in the last several years was in binary in.txt files.[/sarcasm]
Do you know how small 17 acres is? That's a radius of 485 feet. Do you know how small 17 acres is? That's a radius of 485 feet.
I know that in an urban setting like Raleigh it is not just the area but the amount of people with the area. It's called population density. From the article:
"The demands Raleigh police issued for Google data described a 17-acre area that included both homes and businesses. In the Efobi homicide case, the cordon included dozens of units in the Washington Terrace complex near St. Augustine's University." I also know looking at footage of one of the fires, that it is not in the middle of nowhere. Again. Dragnet.
Slashdot Mirror
Right you agree you haven't read the application thus you have no idea what we are talking about.
Non-denial #1. Nothing stops you from downloading a BSD-compliant application into /Users/UnknowingFool and executing it.
Bahahaha. So this is your deflection again. You brought up how Microsoft cannot know which applications are installed yet when pointed out that they are in full control of this you try to deflect that criticism by talking about OS X and Linux. In Linux and OS X (derived from BSD), there are distinct separations of user applications and system applications. While a superuser can always do things against the convention in any system, regular users cannot. Whereas MS has never really enforced any convention for decades.
Yes, Linux and Mac OSX also do not know for sure what programs are installed in the OS. No, it's not a red herring -- it's an explanation for why scanning the filesystem would be necessary under all three OSes if you want to ensure that no incompatible program is stranded upon an OS upgrade. Otherwise you're taking the OS's installed application list at its word and that list is not guaranteed to be complete.
Again a red herring. The complaint that you made was on Microsoft. Again you made this complaint. And now you try to deflect it by mentioning other OS.You can also complain that Commodores never knew where programs were located too.
Any application held in local storage and executable as such is "installed." You're merely fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.,
Bahahahaha,. See here you are trying to change the meaning of the word "installed" because you have been shown up not to know what you are talking about. First, back to what the OP said. He had an Netware installation program in a folder. It was a very old copy of that program, and I don't even know if it could run because Win 10 complained about the compatibility. Second by your definition, almost everything downloaded is "installed" to where "installed" does not mean anything different than "downloaded". Windows force downloaded Windows 10 installation program on my Win 8.1 computer; Win 10 is "installed" even though it has never been run. Funny, it still says Win 8.1 when I look but according to you Win 10 has been "installed". Maybe you should tell MS that as it keeps bothering me to "install" Win 10.
Yes I have, and nothing prevents you from downloading an application file into an unusual folder and executing it
Er? You do know what installing an application entails in OS X right?
There is not enforcement of applications being put into certain folders, it is a convention, just as it is a convention upon installation to list programs within the "Programs and Features" registry entries in Windows so that they can be uninstalled.
So let me understand you correctly: To address your own point that Windows doesn't know for sure what Programs are installed in their own OS and that is something they could fix, you then try to bring up OS X and Linux as a red herring. The last time I checked all my complaints about my Honda should not be directed towards Toyota. Also you failed to acknowledge when pointed out that OS X and Linux do in fact does this better.
That does not change my point, which that the installer could be run from that location and the user might complain about the fact that it could not. The installer is an application as much as any other.
Then that makes your entire point irrelevant. The poster was complaining about something specific which was about Win 10 updater finding a software that it deemed "incompatible" even though it wasn't actually installed.
What a coinky-dink, with no connected to your posts from yesterday at all..
Translation: You are triggered when someone responds to your posts pointing out how foolish they are.
Heck, 2017 was a great year for Linux, only 400 security bugs.. lol
You do know that if you are basing security on the number of bugs in CVE: Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 combined to have more 400 bugs combined in 2017. That doesn't include all other versions of Windows like Server 2012 (235), Server 2016(252), Win 7(229) ,etc. But please feel free to laugh at Microsoft.
As if Linux or Max OS X are any better in that regard.
Have you used OS X? Applications that are installed are in folder called Applications. As for Linux there is the distinct separation between system and user applications with applications being put into certain folders.
The software doesn't have to be "actually installed" in order to be run, and if you're using a Windows 10 client as a network drive server for incompatible versions of windows, you deserve any difficulties that you get.
That's not what the poster said. He said specifically that the Win 10 install refused to work because another software's installer application was located in a folder. It had not been run. Win 10 objected to the mere presence of a file that didn't affect the operation of the machine.
Knock off the stalking behavior - it's creepy.
Jeez you're full of yourself. You posted something and object to being responded is what you're saying. If I had responded to every thing you said you might have a point.
So you agree then that you haven't looked any paperwork but are asserting things that may or may not be true?
Well, you can't trust the "Programs and Features" listing to include all of the software operable on the machine . . .
Well maybe Microsoft should fix that since they created the OS.
The general error nonsense is maddening and stupid, but the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense.
It makes it less reasonable in my opinion. It means I can't update a current Windows computer to 10 that is being used as a network drive for other software because MS finds incompatible even though none of the software is actually installed.
Technically they were not "bricked" but they were definitely broken. Other than phrasing how is his complaint any less relevant?
So you didn't read the applications yet are sure what they don't say. . . That's like my new novel coming out who tells you who really killed Kennedy or not. You'll have to read it even though I'm not writing a novel at all.
If you have to log into a graphical environment on your server to install things, then either you're not a very good admin or the software you're using isn't very good.
You do know we are talking about Windows Server, right which was the point of this entire thread and post? I don't control that Microsoft has put in a GUI into their Server software. With Server 2016 you can opt to install the GUI but previous versions has it installed by default.
For the former: Learn CLI. I'm not trying to gatekeep or be a smug bastard, it's simply a superior way to manage machines.
I would advise you do so the same and read the thread to learn what we are talking about before you put in your irrelevant points. Also you don't know what I know. I do administer Linux machines as well as Windows one.
For the latter, that sucks. I'm sorry. But maybe you should use your remote tools to move the PDF to your local system rather than increase your server's attack surface by installing a viewer for an incredibly over-complicated file format.
That would be great if I used remote tools. You do also know that turning on RDP on a Windows Server increases the attack surface? For an admin it is harder when RDP is off as we have to be physically logged into the machine to do things like install new software.
So you have looked up the applications by the FBI and police or are you merely asserting them?
I've never made either the statements (#1 nor #2) in your post which I am replying to,
When you posted: "My teenage kids debate it with their friends. They're completely joking and so are their friends. It's used to make obscure physics references.The newsworthy guy with the rocket recently, he was completely joking. So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." You are indeed admitting that you don't know any Flat Earthers. How can you know that the people who post videos are in fact joking? You can't know. This is my point #1.
So when you posted this: "To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate..." What were you trying to say? You were saying I didn't know anything even though I do know actual Flat Earthers and you do not. This is point #2.
How about you try quoting what I've actually posted in this topic and then explaining why you disagree with it, rather then attempting to put words in my mouth and then claiming I'm the one who is being illogical.
I did above. Please reference what you wrote. However instead of admitting #1 and #2 you got defensive when it was #1 and #2 you were saying all along.
I definitely stand by my original claim that your username is very appropriate for your statements, as demonstrated by the way you're trying to argue here.
I see you are indeed doubling down on your own ignorance. You cannot possibly know that any or all of the people who posted the videos are joking. And you cannot possibly know who I know. Yet you won't ever admit this, will you?
So you can't use a keyboard and monitor tray to see documentation . . . how?
Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.
You do know that there are these things called rackmounted monitors and keyboards which allow you to directly access a server on a rack, right? They are designed to be 1U and stow away when not needed. If you don't I would have to wonder when is the last time you actually visited a server room.
It's really wonderful how you keep deliberately missing the point.
It's interesting how you don't seem to understand how things work on Windows servers.
The server's role here is to make the files available, and regardless of what the file type is, there is no requirement for it to have a client application installed.
You mean besides the fact that if the user isn't remote but is actually directly logged into a server. That was the very first thing that I said.
. If you think otherwise, then apparently Microsoft has damaged your brain to the point of being unable to use a file browser.
Again that only works if you simply ignore the scenario presented.
So in our hypothetical situation of needing to view a PDF on a remote server, what exactly is the problem with opening that folder in Explorer and using your local application to view said document?
Other than that doesn't work if you don't have a local PDF application installed? Or the ability to install a PDF viewer due to admin privileges? Or the ability to get to download one because the server is firewalled from the Internet? That's the chief complaint is that there is no default reader on Windows Server before 2016. Even then you need to use Edge.
Are we suggesting that one might have administrative access but not file access?
Not the only access. Having a PDF viewer application would be helpful.
If you need to edit a bitmap on a remote server, would you install Photoshop as well?
The ability to read a PDF which is a universal document is an entirely different need than to edit a bitmap.
How about TeX files, or OpenOffice?
Again reading TeX files which are not universally used for documentation is a different requirement than PDF files as TeX is generally used for technical papers. But to your point most *nix servers require TeX or LaTeX to be installed to read them.
This is the sort of problem which would only ever occur to Windows admins, and it doesn't speak well to either the ecosystem or the adminstrators.
I would imagine Windows admins are the only ones who would have access to Windows Servers when trying to do their work which the OP was complaining about.
I doubt if most here run Windows servers.
The problem is that lots of businesses run Windows servers and this is a problem.
Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format.
You might not but other companies do document in PDF. Yes they might also have text files and HTML files but PDF is quite common.
. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary.
You mean like Windows Server? Sure you can run command line things in Windows Server but it's not all command line.
In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.
Instead you complain about other people who have real problems because you don't have the same problem. Also you didn't think that real world scenarios exist merely because they don't exist for you.
The extraordinary claim here is the following : Someone keeping things secret from their boss (the public is , directly or indirectly depending on your point of view, the boss of FBI) is being transparent, fair, honest, constitutional, and ethical.
There is a difference between it's not being reported in detail and "it's secret". So did you look the applications made by the local police and FBI to condemn the building? Did you look at their demolition permits? Did you look at any and all court orders? No. You assumed it's secret because you don't know.
If they had the details recorded under NDA or something similar for public institutions, by known unrelated experts in the field, and submitted the details to a court to get the demolition order, there could have been the justification of preventing idiots in the public from creating a ludicrously easy but highly dangerous substance.
Again you not knowing details doesn't mean it is secret.
No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.
I assume he means 2012 R2 which was released in 2014.
BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.
So you don't deny that before Server 2016 it's a problem. You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?
You know this whole thread we are talking about Windows right?
Which shows a complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS. That assumes the scenario that I only remote login to the server and I never have actual access to it. For example the installation is on a CD/USB, it's much easier to stick into the server than upload it to a network share then download it.
The second part of why that is silly is that after I unpack/unzip the installation files on the server. I have to do the same thing on my machine just to read the documentation on the installation process. Or transfer them my client machine." That also doesn't take into account if there are issues and I have to look at additional information written in PDF from the vendor.
Do to try to weasel out of admitting your flaws in logic by trying to impose conditions that didn't exist until you made them up? If I said scientists overwhelmingly support climate change would you say your buddies don't support it so not all scientists support it. If I asked what fields of science they work in, then you'd admit they have no science backgrounds but read science news stories but they're "scientists". Because rather than admit you don't really know Flat Eathers and at the same time you can't possibly know who or what I know you made an assertion about what I know.
1. Flat Earthers are all joking
2. I don't know Flat Eathers
You cannot prove #1 and you certainly cannot know #2. Yet you are certain about both.
[sarcasm]Heaven forbid someone should open and read a PDF document on a server. I mean it's not like everyone uses that format being so obscure. Every installation manual I've used in the last several years was in binary in .txt files.[/sarcasm]
Do you know how small 17 acres is? That's a radius of 485 feet. Do you know how small 17 acres is? That's a radius of 485 feet.
I know that in an urban setting like Raleigh it is not just the area but the amount of people with the area. It's called population density. From the article: "The demands Raleigh police issued for Google data described a 17-acre area that included both homes and businesses. In the Efobi homicide case, the cordon included dozens of units in the Washington Terrace complex near St. Augustine's University." I also know looking at footage of one of the fires, that it is not in the middle of nowhere. Again. Dragnet.