It's only been relatively recently that Microsoft has started to change that.
Um, you mean 1996 when NT4 was first released?
Has Microsoft worked with or pushed software developers enough to ensure their products conform to the new security model?
Yes, but they can't force anyone to do anything, except to break their apps in Vista, which they've mostly avoided by creating a faux storage system for places like/Program Files and the machine-specific areas of the registry. It's quite ingenuous, actually. Works well for older apps that must have INI files in their installation directories, for example.
How about disallowing the ones that don't from displaying the Microsoft logo on their products, etc?
You mean that "Designed for Windows" thing? Not assuming an admin account was one of the requirements for that, so I doubt there are many apps out there with the logo that don't work in Vista because of that, specifically.
Who the fuck used non-privileged accounts in XP, besides huge corporations?
My sister and my mom, for about five years, I'm sure besides many others that took the time to make the change. Happily, if I might add.
it was hidden away from 2000 to XP.
You mean OEMs shipped with an admin account by default, which is not quite the same.
And if you are a gamer you can just forget it right now.
You might be right. The few (admittedly older and simpler) games I did run under non-admin accounts on XP ended up working OK after tweaking a few ACLs. But most 'normal' users wouldn't know how to do that.
Isn't it funny how you keep linking to twitter's journal? Oh wait, it's not. This account is a sockpuppet you use to troll Slashdot and shill your own posts when the 'twitter' one hits negative karma. Occasionally you getcaught though, so the systems seems to be working.
It's interesting that these Vista stories whip you up into such a frenzy that you can't even be bothered to pretend you're twitter's "fan" anymore.
And this is Microsoft's fault, or of the companies who create applications that think they have the go of the entire box? Any application that plays nice with the filesystem/registry ACLs works perfectly well in Vista, the same way they worked on XP under non-privileged accounts.
I run Vista and quite frankly these alleged horror stories amuse me. It's not "slow", it doesn't pop up permission dialogs every five seconds, it didn't deactivate itself when I swapped the network card. After about three days of getting used to where everything was, I'm pretty much as comfortable using it as I was with XP. The only problem I had was a freeware Explorer clone that required elevated privileges, but I really don't use it that much so that's not a big deal. Vim, Komodo Edit, Visual Studio 2005, all my build/config/testing tools, etc. Everything works.
The guy that wrote this article should consider working for the Onion. It's hilarious that he can't seem to figure out how to shut down the computer. I mean, it's the first freaking button next to the search box, and it doesn't even ask for confirmation anymore. I leave the thing on all the time so I'm not big on the shutdown shortcuts, but whatever.
If he doesn't want to migrate to Vista, that's fine. More power to him. But these "opinion articles" with their "I can't be bothered to figure out a slightly different Control Panel - instead, I switched operating systems!" matra are just annoying and stupid.
God, I'm so glad I bought a computer with Windows XPN, which thanks to the wisdom of the European Union and RealNetworks' claims of unfair competition against their cuasi-malware player, does not include Windows Media Player! Yes, instead the OEM installed... oh, wait. They installed RealPlayer. Holy sh #$!@&*^} NO CARRIER
If you are unfortunate enough to work for a big dumb company, you will be fired for exercising your software freedom
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "software freedom". Computers are provided by employers to manage tasks and handle data related to your function within the organization. Where exactly does your freedom come into play there? And what does free software do there that "Windoze" doesn't?
What kind of secrets does your company actually have? There's customer information, location and movement of valuables, business plans and a host of other information that can be harmful to divulge.
You don't say.
None of this is an excuse to cut into your software freedom at home or even at work.
Sure it is, if it's company-provided hardware. You really have never had a job at a real company, have you?
You sound like those (former) disgruntled employees at the "big dumb stupid" companies that won't let you exercise your "freedom of speech" by letting you install Kazaa and BitTorrent on the laptop they gave you to do your job. Down with the man!
I would think generating 30MB of verbose XML and then zipping it up takes longer than to write a 4MB binary blob to an OLE stream. Which is why I think ODF and OOXML are both stupid solutions searching for a problem.
Yes, in contrast to the creation of a Linux distribution, which doesn't cost any money and doesn't take any effort.
The cost of software development (in this context) is expressed primarily as time. Producing music requires much more than just time, a PC and a text editor.
(or rather, if enough people pay to cover hosting costs) it's a win for the band
Well that's fairly obvious, but this is not a Linux distro. Producing the music also costs money. Coming out even on the bandwidth used to distribute the music would not be enough.
As opposed to licenses that are... complicated because... they are the truth? I'm not sure I understand this.
They don't have any intention to do anything but what they've always done: suck up your work and and screw you in court, the market place and public opinion.
Wow twitter, if you would be so kind as to explain to us how these licenses are going to "suck up" anything (assuming people are forced to use them, I guess?) that would be a great start.
The GPL is like good science,
I'm sure you don't actually realize this, but in a careful poll of industry leaders and on a logarithmic scale of bad analogies, you just it.
Wow, in all my years on Slashdot I've never seen someone so religiously attached to someone else's journal entries. That crapfest you linked to about Google and even the URL in your profile.
That's funny, we do, considering you wrote that. Or are you actually denying that 'twitter' and 'Erris' are bothsockpuppets of the same person? Do you think people who read Slashdot are really that stupid?
You can insult people all you want by calling them turds, that doesn't change anything. Your other sockpuppet is in karma hell and likely to stay there. It's a safe bet to say that this one is heading there as well. Good riddance. The last thing this community needs is another self-professed "evangelist" who makes people laugh more often than not and makes everyone look bad.
I don't know why the Slashdot editors continue to accept stories from a known troll with negative karma who uses sockpuppets to game Slashdot. I mean, surely someone else submitted this?
I'm surprised he didn't submit this jewel from his entertaining journal though. Oh, wait. I know why.
Ooooh, that's so clever. Well, that does it for me. I won't bother you anymore, since surely there are other minions of the evil empire you must do battle with?
I wasn't referring to the vulnerability in shell32 itself, but to the way applications handle escape quotes in URIs passed to registered handlers like "chrome://".
Most people (yourself included, apparently) don't understand that this is a two-way street. Microsoft can fix errors in their code, but they can do fuck all about what Firefox or Adobe Reader do with the input passed to them. But then it's so much fun to spin that part, isn't it?
hi twitter. How's that karma doing? Had to fall back on the ol' sockpuppet, eh?
the problem happened if you installed IE7, not before.
And?
M$ has just admitted their mistaken way of dealing with urls in XP and 2003.
"M$" has modified the way it works, which does not mean it's "mistaken". And these are not URLs, they're URIs passed to registered moniker handlers. You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?
How is that Firefox again?
They registered a handler with the shell. If they hadn't done that, this wouldn't have happened, since IE7 apparently handles the same type of URIs correctly.
By the way, please don't insult my intelligence by posting retarded things like these as an AC. Be a man and take responsibility for what you say, or stop bitching about how the big bad ACs victimize you.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, you had already posted once with your other account on this same story. Any reason for that?
Um, you mean 1996 when NT4 was first released?
Yes, but they can't force anyone to do anything, except to break their apps in Vista, which they've mostly avoided by creating a faux storage system for places like /Program Files and the machine-specific areas of the registry. It's quite ingenuous, actually. Works well for older apps that must have INI files in their installation directories, for example.
You mean that "Designed for Windows" thing? Not assuming an admin account was one of the requirements for that, so I doubt there are many apps out there with the logo that don't work in Vista because of that, specifically.
My sister and my mom, for about five years, I'm sure besides many others that took the time to make the change. Happily, if I might add.
You mean OEMs shipped with an admin account by default, which is not quite the same.
You might be right. The few (admittedly older and simpler) games I did run under non-admin accounts on XP ended up working OK after tweaking a few ACLs. But most 'normal' users wouldn't know how to do that.
It's interesting that these Vista stories whip you up into such a frenzy that you can't even be bothered to pretend you're twitter's "fan" anymore.
I run Vista and quite frankly these alleged horror stories amuse me. It's not "slow", it doesn't pop up permission dialogs every five seconds, it didn't deactivate itself when I swapped the network card. After about three days of getting used to where everything was, I'm pretty much as comfortable using it as I was with XP. The only problem I had was a freeware Explorer clone that required elevated privileges, but I really don't use it that much so that's not a big deal. Vim, Komodo Edit, Visual Studio 2005, all my build/config/testing tools, etc. Everything works.
The guy that wrote this article should consider working for the Onion. It's hilarious that he can't seem to figure out how to shut down the computer. I mean, it's the first freaking button next to the search box, and it doesn't even ask for confirmation anymore. I leave the thing on all the time so I'm not big on the shutdown shortcuts, but whatever.
If he doesn't want to migrate to Vista, that's fine. More power to him. But these "opinion articles" with their "I can't be bothered to figure out a slightly different Control Panel - instead, I switched operating systems!" matra are just annoying and stupid.
God, I'm so glad I bought a computer with Windows XPN, which thanks to the wisdom of the European Union and RealNetworks' claims of unfair competition against their cuasi-malware player, does not include Windows Media Player! Yes, instead the OEM installed... oh, wait. They installed RealPlayer. Holy sh #$!@&*^} NO CARRIER
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "software freedom". Computers are provided by employers to manage tasks and handle data related to your function within the organization. Where exactly does your freedom come into play there? And what does free software do there that "Windoze" doesn't?
You don't say.
Sure it is, if it's company-provided hardware. You really have never had a job at a real company, have you?
You sound like those (former) disgruntled employees at the "big dumb stupid" companies that won't let you exercise your "freedom of speech" by letting you install Kazaa and BitTorrent on the laptop they gave you to do your job. Down with the man!
Technically 3.0 was "Windows OS/2 3.0" or whatever they were calling it back then, though the first proper "Windows NT" release was 3.1.
The first really usable version was 3.5.
I would think generating 30MB of verbose XML and then zipping it up takes longer than to write a 4MB binary blob to an OLE stream. Which is why I think ODF and OOXML are both stupid solutions searching for a problem.
The cost of software development (in this context) is expressed primarily as time. Producing music requires much more than just time, a PC and a text editor.
Well that's fairly obvious, but this is not a Linux distro. Producing the music also costs money. Coming out even on the bandwidth used to distribute the music would not be enough.
Instead of sugared-up theories about why this happened, it's possible that the model simply won't work.
I hope you aren't too stupid to see the problem with the distinction.
As opposed to licenses that are... complicated because... they are the truth? I'm not sure I understand this.
Wow twitter, if you would be so kind as to explain to us how these licenses are going to "suck up" anything (assuming people are forced to use them, I guess?) that would be a great start.
I'm sure you don't actually realize this, but in a careful poll of industry leaders and on a logarithmic scale of bad analogies, you just it.
As opposed to the FSF pushing licenses that restrict developer freedom?
Eventually the mods will wise up to him like they did with his other sockuppet, and that will be the end of that.
Try again.
Cite?
It's Windows. And it empowers me just fine. I mean, I get stuff done just fine. Like hundreds of millions of other people. You know?
Trust me, I feel your pain.
Oh, wait. This account is actually a sockpuppet of the well-known troll twitter, who even has his own tag category.
That's funny, we do, considering you wrote that. Or are you actually denying that 'twitter' and 'Erris' are both sockpuppets of the same person? Do you think people who read Slashdot are really that stupid?
You can insult people all you want by calling them turds, that doesn't change anything. Your other sockpuppet is in karma hell and likely to stay there. It's a safe bet to say that this one is heading there as well. Good riddance. The last thing this community needs is another self-professed "evangelist" who makes people laugh more often than not and makes everyone look bad.
I'm sure you're just about to provide proof of that claim. Right? I'd love to see it.
I'm surprised he didn't submit this jewel from his entertaining journal though. Oh, wait. I know why.
Ooooh, that's so clever. Well, that does it for me. I won't bother you anymore, since surely there are other minions of the evil empire you must do battle with?
Good luck!
Most people (yourself included, apparently) don't understand that this is a two-way street. Microsoft can fix errors in their code, but they can do fuck all about what Firefox or Adobe Reader do with the input passed to them. But then it's so much fun to spin that part, isn't it?
And?
"M$" has modified the way it works, which does not mean it's "mistaken". And these are not URLs, they're URIs passed to registered moniker handlers. You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?
They registered a handler with the shell. If they hadn't done that, this wouldn't have happened, since IE7 apparently handles the same type of URIs correctly.
By the way, please don't insult my intelligence by posting retarded things like these as an AC. Be a man and take responsibility for what you say, or stop bitching about how the big bad ACs victimize you.