First, I'd never mod you down for having a different opinion; the whole point of/. is to have these conversations. Sure there are problems and you have to wade through the muck, but while wading, you often find some real gems. Thus is life, and especially Internet life.
I understand that all OSs have viruses, and of course everyone should exercise basic caution. I was just commenting on how anytime any virus or such is mentioned about OS X, people jump on it with vigor and suggest that it proves OS X is just as bad as Windows. In these people's black and white world, you either have no issues are all the issues, which is silly. My point is one should compare things relatively, if something has fewer issues than something else (even if it still has issues), then it is better.
There are actually real problems with OS X, and I can always tell when the person who is complaining about it has actually used it (more than for a few minutes at a friends house or the Apple store). I have no problems with these complaints, because they are valid, and useful. However, it's just noise, when these other people who've never actually used OS X personally, complain so bitterly about it. This is just a "mine is better than yours" pissing contest, and just about as useful. Now you may complain that Mac people do this too, which is true, and I happily hark on them when they say something stupid about Windows. But the one big difference is: I guarantee that the Mac people have had a lot of experience with Windows, as it's hard not to.
And lastly, OS X is much better than Windows on Viruses, this is a fact, not opinion. It is because of the fundemental design of OS X. Vista actually copied this design (which is also used by Linux) and now Vista is much, much better. But the truth remains, if I buy my mom a Windows XP machine, I will install Virus, anti-spyware, etc on it. If I buy my mom a Mac, I won't. This is reality; you may claim that someday it won't be like this, but who cares, it's a reality now. Heck, I can set my mom up without admin rights at all, and she can happily use her computer, and even install applications; the worst that can happen is something bad can destroy all of the files she has rights to, which isn't much.
The claim that OS X will never get viruses or malware? Really, someone was stupid enough to claim that?
I don't think you get my point, so I'll type real slow this time. My point was that everytime anything about OS X comes up, such as a virus, malware, or bugs, someone jumps on it and shouts "Aha!", as if that somehow proves that OS X does indeed suck, and their beloved OS (usually Windows) isn't as bad as everyone says. They never get the point, that even if OS X gets 50,000 known viruses (rather than the 60 it actually has now) it will still have half as many as Windows. If you can't understand that having 50% of something bad (in this case, more like 99%) makes your product better, then I really can't help you.
Yeah, I'm aware that Windows changes the title color for the fore-ground window. I was just noting that OS X does a better job of showing you the z-order of windows (it does this with varying drop shadows). Knowing the z-order does help when you have a bunch of non-maximized windows open.
It's interesting how little Windows uses drag and drop. You don't notice this until you work in an OS that uses it a lot. For example, you can't even drop a document on a running app in the taskbar. Most Windows users wouldn't even notice that doesn't work, but when you're so use to it, it seem strange to be missing. I don't think one approach is better than the other, they are just different.
P.S. All of you "there has never been a trojan or virus in the wild for OS X" can all all shut up now. Wow, malware and viruses in the wild on OS X, you got us, you're so right, I wonder how much I can get for my Mac on ebay, I'm switching to Windows right now.
It's like me saying "my new car gets 1,000 miles on a gallon of gas, and yours only gets 25", and they you respond "Aha! you admitted it, yours still uses gas, just like mine, you can shut up now, it's no better"
I'm a Unix zealot, that covers all bases, except, of course that wonderful OS from Microsoft. To quote myself in regards to Microsoft:
"... I supported them for a long, long time; but like an abusive father, one day you start to punch back, and then you leave; because you realize, it's just not worth it anymore."
I think with anything, it's personal preference. You can use the dock, you can use alt-tabbing (command-tabbing in OS X), you can use Expose, you can use desktop managers like Spaces, or you can minimize everything. I like there there are many options, because I know my preferences won't be the same as yours.
I personally use Expose a lot, it's just easier for me to find what I'm looking for. I keep all my windows open, I never minimize, and I use Expose and Spaces (VirtuaDesktop in Tiger) to manager them. I rarely use the doc for launching (I use Quicksilver for this), and I never use it for task switching. This approach works well for my workflow, your mileage, most certainly, will vary.
Some Expose tips:
* Use F10 as well as F9, which only shows windows of the current application (great for looking at all the folders you have open)
* Use Expose with drag and drop. Let's say you have 10 Finder (File Explorer for you Windows types) windows opened. You want to drag a file from the foreground window to another one, but it isn't visible. Don't wast your time going and finding it and placing it next to your foreground window, just use Expose. Grab the file and drag it, hit F10, which shows you all the Finder windows, place your mouse over the other Finder window you want to drop it on, hit F10 again. Drop it. That's slick. It also works with the Desktop, and any other app.
* When Expose is open, hit your tab key, you'll see what it does
* Use Expose with the keyboard, not the mouse: F9, arrow, arrow, enter
Regarding maximize, I think it has a lot to do with your resolution as well. If you have a high resolution monitor, maximizing often produces a little tiny bit of content with 80% whitespace. When I'm using my laptop disconnected from my monitor, I tend to max out my screens as well, but not with my monitor. OS X's zoom feature (green dot) is designed to make the window just big enough to hold all of its contents, but no more.
Maximize works well in Windows, because you have the taskbar, which if you think about it acts as an upside-down set of tabs. So basically you have 1 large screen of tabs that you flip through with the taskbar. Also Windows (at least XP and below) doesn't highlight the foreground window real well, so if you have a bunch of windows opened and showing, it's really hard to tell which one is the front most window.
Since OS X doesn't have the taskbar, it does a good job of highlighing the z-order of the windows, and it has stuff like Expose, having floating windows, rather than maximized windows, works really well. I always use a desktop manager like Spaces or VirtuaDesktops so I layout my windows and switch "spaces", rather than minimizing.
It's just a different way of approaching the problem.
OS X also uses drag and drop a whole lot more than Windows, so that necessitates having windows next to each other rather than on top of each other. Someone in Windows will always go to the right-click first, and old Mac user will try drag and drop first; which also explains why a right-click wasn't very important to Macs for a long time.
It's interesting to look back at Photoshop, which started out exclusively on the Mac. Older versions were very Mac-like, with many small floating windows. But once they came out with a Windows version and that became the dominant OS for their software, they started to make it more Windows like, without the floating windows. This happened to Macromedia's stuff too.
It's sad really, Logitech use to rock, but I'm getting more and more disappointed with their products. Am I really only left with Microsoft mice (which admittedly are good mice)?
Any opinions out there on really good quality mice, that work well in both Windows and OS X?
I'm a happy OS X user, who complains about Vista. Let's get two things straight:
1) Apple ships buggy 1.0 stuff, this has always been true, they are kind of known for it. This isn't a good thing, and Apple is pretty lame for doing this, as there really is no excuse for it. They do, however, fix the bugs pretty quick, usually within a week to a few months.
2) Vista has many, many problems, which are well documented. It isn't because Vista is new, I don't complain about bugs that they will obviously fix in a service pack (although they wait too long to release the first service pack), I complain about poor engineering decisions and design issues that aren't going to go away.
Oh and lastly, you'll get use to no task bar, and no maximize, and no start menu. At first, I found it all strange and difficult, but once I got use to it, I started looking for ways of changing Windows to make it more OS X-like.
Unfortunately, this trend to use an installer is starting to increase, which drives me crazy. Most of it is ported apps, from people who just aren't familiar with the way OS X works. I guess this is the price you pay for increased popularity of your platform.
It's true that more software on the Mac comes from independent developers. I really like this, most of what I use is either open-source or from someone small; which I'm happy to give my money too. One nice thing is, OS X is a small community, and if an app is good people talk about it, and if an app is bad people really talk about it. It's easy to be a tiny developer, and still get a major right-up in a national magazine, or sell your software on the shelf in an Apple store. Reminds me of the Windows market 10 years ago; sad how that has all changed over in that community.
Which is true, PCs are. They don't claim to be immune to viruses, that would be silly. If a computer can run software, then it can run software which copies itself automatically (virally). The problem comes when an OS allows a virus or worm, or malware to install itself automatically with no user interaction. And yes, if you do the math, OS X and Linux are hugely less susceptible to these kind of attacks then Windows (older versions, I know Vista is better).
Of course, if the user gives software admin rights, that software can do anything. There is no OS on the planet that can stop that.
load of shareware as there isn't much proper software out there. First off, shareware is a method of distribution, not a type of software. Most software that is called 'shareware' isn't. If being able to download and demo software for a period of time then unlocking it with a serial number is shareware, then Photoshop and Microsoft Office are shareware.
Second off, I assume you mean software from small independent vendors, I'm curious why this type software isn't "proper software".
Lastly, you rarely "install" applications in OS X, it isn't Windows. You can run them from your own Applications folder which requires only your own rights. The apps that do require admin rights, are modifying the system in some way, and those do require you to give the administrator password. Since this dialog is rare, people do pay special attention when it pops up. There's only so much an OS designer can do.
colorls is in ports for gnubies, Can't you just turn on color with ls -G like in OS X? No need for gnu ls. The only reason I'd want gnu stuff is to be consistent with the Linux servers, so I could have 1 set of scripts. Personally, I don't install gnu tools in OS X, I use ls - G, and curl instead of wget, etc.
I use OS X on my workstations, because I think it's the best *nix workstation at the moment, but I use Linux, exclusively on the server. I really need to try BSD. I really enjoy ports on OS X, so I'm sure I'd like it in BSD.
The only problem I run into on OS X is some of the GNU tools aren't there, and the BSD version of stuff like ls and such are different. But you can port install that stuff, so really that issue is mute. I think I'll fire up a virtual server and try out BSD
That would be wonderful if policies are created to be followed, they are not. I own a company, I've sat with my lawyers coming up with policies, they have very little to do with how I really want my employees to act, and a lot more to do with minimizing litigation risk. You have to actually fight to get your lawyer to allow your employees to use company equipment for appropriate personal activities. The bigger the company the more lawyers to fight.
Everyone knows this, thus why people really don't pay attention to such policies. When you get your oil changed, you sign a four page contract, do you read it? No, it's silly.
There is actually a protesting tactic used by truckers. It's a kind of strike. They start following all company and highway rules, precisely. They do this until their demands from the company are met. Strangely, companies yield fairly quickly; it's ironic that you can punish your employer by following their rules.
It all depends on what kind of developer one is. If your doing Windows desktop development, not giving the developer Admin rights to their machine is more than silly. As in the real world, you have to have that in Windows to do most anything. Frankly, that's a question I would ask if I were interviewing for a job, and if I didn't have full control over my development workstation and development servers, I wouldn't take the job, period; I'm not interesting in being non-productive, or working in a dev team that doesn't know how to setup their servers.
If the network has mission critical apps, and developers are working on networking code, then you isolate the development team from that network, at least for those ports. If the network can't handle me accidentially causing problems with my workstation, it can hardly handle someone purposly causing problems.
Now, I'll put on my other hat, the one where I develop using a Unix workstation for Unix servers. In this environment, I'm perfectly happy having no rights but my home folder. As you can work just fine without full rights in Unix; installing your own apps, changing your own settings, etc. Even so, if you can't trust your very expensive professional devs, then perhaps you need new devs.
As for developers building apps that don't require Admin rights, this is a QA issue, not an IT issue.
I have no interest having domain rights, or rights to production systems, especially mission critical production servers. But I do insist on control over my development machines. You wouldn't hire a contractor to build your house, then have him ask permission each time he needed a new tool from his tool chest, sure he can ruin your plumbing with his hammer, but he's a professional, trust him or replace him.
How do you count 2? I just tried it, here are the 3 different dialog boxes that appear:
Copy File "There is already a file with the same name in this location..."
Destination Folder Access Denied "You'll need to provide administrator permission to copy to this folder..."
User Account Control "Windows needs your permission to continue..."
Why are there 3? Why not 1 that says "You are going to overwrite this, you'll need to be elevated to administrator, do you want do do this"? I know I'm no "Microsoft UI design expert", but it doesn't take one to realize that 3 dialog boxes compared to one just annoys the hell out of users.
And I've never used the beta, only the version released, and I'll badmouth UAC anytime someone asks about it. Because I know for a fact, that my users simply disable it because it's so annoying, thus defeating the whole point to begin with.
First off, good job on the huge number of replies. No better way to get a lot of responses than to insult the average/. reader.
Second, if you really think that the general IT worker has any control over any of this, you're living in a fantasy world. People do what they have to to make whomever is paying them happy; and that certainly isn't the users. The IT worker doesn't create these rules, or this environment, you need to look a little higher, perhaps the CIO (CTO) or his/her boss the COO.
I'm not a an IT worker, but a developer, and I get basically the same kind of comments "Programmers don't understand users... blah blah blah". As if us "programmers" have any say, what-so-ever over how many applications are designed in large corporations. Here is how it works: because software is expensive to develop, the high level people (CTO, COO, and sometimes even the CEO) insist on being intimately involved in the process. Even those these people have never used the current software, and will never use the new software, they tell you exactly how it should work. Of course these people have absolutely no experience designing software, but anyone can do it right? You would think that, perhaps, they'd have a real user sit in on the meetings, to help figure out what would work best for them to do their job. You would think, but sadly, this rarely happens. Of course there are good companies who's goal is to actually help the users do their jobs better, but this is the exception not the rule; most companies care about politics, power, and person gain above all else.
Both OS X and Linux have the same concept of elevated privileges. Vista copied this concept. It's a good concept, of which no one would argue. It's Vista's implementation of the concept that is bad.
Wether you believe it or not, when people started using Vista, the complaints started rolling in over UAC. These complaints don't occur in OS X, nor distros of Linux, such as Ubuntu, which use the same concept. So either there's a global conspiracy to badmouth Vista, and only Vista, or perhaps, just perhaps, there is something wrong with UAC in Vista.
Copy a file to a folder in Program Files. You get 3 dialog boxes asking you various questions, 3! Um, perhaps we can take up a collection and send it to Microsoft so they they can hire some offshore programmers to turn that into 1.
What you say is very true. However, you need to actually learn the concepts. I was talking to a programmer, with a little more than a year experience doing "web application development". I put that in quotes, because he has been doing ASP.net, successfully I imagine, and he didn't have the slightest idea how web pages actually worked. I was trying to explain Post and Put in HTTP, and it was like I was speaking greek. This is the problem.
It is true, that there should be different options for different people, I'd hate a world where only OS X or Linux existed. Ideally, a few major players would exist that had equal market share; this would be good for everyone as it fosters competition (like what happened when Firefox started to takeoff, people who like IE enjoyed Microsoft's renewed interest in adding new features to it).
But really, Microsoft guys are safe in not ever needing to cross over. I have a few problems with this:
* One is I started out as Microsoft developer, some VB, but mostly Visual C++. I also worked at a company that did a lot of FoxPro and some Visual J. You're to young to remember this, as you're just starting out, but the problem with knowing non-standard technologies, is they can and will be taken away from you. I mentioned FoxPro and Visual J, because those were, and those developers were left high and dry. Heck, I know plenty of VB developers that complain bitterly about Microsoft dropping them (and no, VB.NET isn't VB, other than in appearance). VB was one of the most popular languages, and Microsoft just dropped it. Once you've been around for a while, you see this happen time and time again; your.net knowlege, in the future, will be just as useful as FoxPro knowlege is now. Sure c# is a standard, but it won't matter when Microsoft decides to switch to Foo++ language and none of their tools support c# anymore.
* The other problem I have is that the world is far from black and white. And even all Microsoft shops will have 3rd party tools come into their domain and they will have to work with them. Plus companies need to work with other companies, and you can't control what they will have. You WILL be exposed to non-Microsoft technology, and your boss WILL expect you to make it work, NOW. After years and years of this, you start to change your mind about what you should be learning.
Microsoft can make excellent tools that support industry and de-facto standards. And they would be very good at this, and they would make lots of money. But they refuse too, because "lots of money" isn't "all the money", and thus isn't good enough for them. I supported them for a long, long time; but like an abusive father, one day you start to punch back, and then you leave; because you realize, it's just not worth it anymore.
And this is the fundamental problem with using Microsoft technology. You can argue about this or that, but the main reason I don't spend much time using it is because it limits my skills. If you learn Microsoft technology, then your are basically limited to Microsoft technology; because they so often refuse to use standards, and insist on going their own way. If you learn Unix technologies, your skill is transferable to almost every other OS except Windows.
It's a brilliant business move by Microsoft, and the reason that IT people who work in Microsoft shops are so defensive of their technology. If their company changes to anything else, they will have very limited applicable skills.
I personally work with OS X and Linux, but if everyone wanted to change to Solaris, I could care less, after a day of getting adjusted, I'd be back up to full speed.
Sometimes things need to get really bad, before people wake up and make changes.
Perhaps, a company should be created, whose sole purpose to to flood the patent office with patent applications with things like "Sticky substance used to attach two or more objects" and "Method of training an animal with verbal direction and praise", to be followed with "Method of training an animal with verbal direction and hand motions", "Method of training an animal with verbal direction and hand motions, while standing or sitting in a field of grass".
Of course all these will pass, effortlessly. Then when the company, literally, has a patent on every method and product in existence things will change... possibly.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I'd never mod you down for having a different opinion; the whole point of /. is to have these conversations. Sure there are problems and you have to wade through the muck, but while wading, you often find some real gems. Thus is life, and especially Internet life.
I understand that all OSs have viruses, and of course everyone should exercise basic caution. I was just commenting on how anytime any virus or such is mentioned about OS X, people jump on it with vigor and suggest that it proves OS X is just as bad as Windows. In these people's black and white world, you either have no issues are all the issues, which is silly. My point is one should compare things relatively, if something has fewer issues than something else (even if it still has issues), then it is better.
There are actually real problems with OS X, and I can always tell when the person who is complaining about it has actually used it (more than for a few minutes at a friends house or the Apple store). I have no problems with these complaints, because they are valid, and useful. However, it's just noise, when these other people who've never actually used OS X personally, complain so bitterly about it. This is just a "mine is better than yours" pissing contest, and just about as useful. Now you may complain that Mac people do this too, which is true, and I happily hark on them when they say something stupid about Windows. But the one big difference is: I guarantee that the Mac people have had a lot of experience with Windows, as it's hard not to.
And lastly, OS X is much better than Windows on Viruses, this is a fact, not opinion. It is because of the fundemental design of OS X. Vista actually copied this design (which is also used by Linux) and now Vista is much, much better. But the truth remains, if I buy my mom a Windows XP machine, I will install Virus, anti-spyware, etc on it. If I buy my mom a Mac, I won't. This is reality; you may claim that someday it won't be like this, but who cares, it's a reality now. Heck, I can set my mom up without admin rights at all, and she can happily use her computer, and even install applications; the worst that can happen is something bad can destroy all of the files she has rights to, which isn't much.
The claim that OS X will never get viruses or malware? Really, someone was stupid enough to claim that?
I don't think you get my point, so I'll type real slow this time. My point was that everytime anything about OS X comes up, such as a virus, malware, or bugs, someone jumps on it and shouts "Aha!", as if that somehow proves that OS X does indeed suck, and their beloved OS (usually Windows) isn't as bad as everyone says. They never get the point, that even if OS X gets 50,000 known viruses (rather than the 60 it actually has now) it will still have half as many as Windows. If you can't understand that having 50% of something bad (in this case, more like 99%) makes your product better, then I really can't help you.
Yeah, I'm aware that Windows changes the title color for the fore-ground window. I was just noting that OS X does a better job of showing you the z-order of windows (it does this with varying drop shadows). Knowing the z-order does help when you have a bunch of non-maximized windows open.
It's interesting how little Windows uses drag and drop. You don't notice this until you work in an OS that uses it a lot. For example, you can't even drop a document on a running app in the taskbar. Most Windows users wouldn't even notice that doesn't work, but when you're so use to it, it seem strange to be missing. I don't think one approach is better than the other, they are just different.
It's like me saying "my new car gets 1,000 miles on a gallon of gas, and yours only gets 25", and they you respond "Aha! you admitted it, yours still uses gas, just like mine, you can shut up now, it's no better"
I'm a Unix zealot, that covers all bases, except, of course that wonderful OS from Microsoft. To quote myself in regards to Microsoft:
"... I supported them for a long, long time; but like an abusive father, one day you start to punch back, and then you leave; because you realize, it's just not worth it anymore."
I think with anything, it's personal preference. You can use the dock, you can use alt-tabbing (command-tabbing in OS X), you can use Expose, you can use desktop managers like Spaces, or you can minimize everything. I like there there are many options, because I know my preferences won't be the same as yours.
I personally use Expose a lot, it's just easier for me to find what I'm looking for. I keep all my windows open, I never minimize, and I use Expose and Spaces (VirtuaDesktop in Tiger) to manager them. I rarely use the doc for launching (I use Quicksilver for this), and I never use it for task switching. This approach works well for my workflow, your mileage, most certainly, will vary.
Some Expose tips:
* Use F10 as well as F9, which only shows windows of the current application (great for looking at all the folders you have open)
* Use Expose with drag and drop. Let's say you have 10 Finder (File Explorer for you Windows types) windows opened. You want to drag a file from the foreground window to another one, but it isn't visible. Don't wast your time going and finding it and placing it next to your foreground window, just use Expose. Grab the file and drag it, hit F10, which shows you all the Finder windows, place your mouse over the other Finder window you want to drop it on, hit F10 again. Drop it. That's slick. It also works with the Desktop, and any other app.
* When Expose is open, hit your tab key, you'll see what it does
* Use Expose with the keyboard, not the mouse: F9, arrow, arrow, enter
Regarding maximize, I think it has a lot to do with your resolution as well. If you have a high resolution monitor, maximizing often produces a little tiny bit of content with 80% whitespace. When I'm using my laptop disconnected from my monitor, I tend to max out my screens as well, but not with my monitor. OS X's zoom feature (green dot) is designed to make the window just big enough to hold all of its contents, but no more.
Maximize works well in Windows, because you have the taskbar, which if you think about it acts as an upside-down set of tabs. So basically you have 1 large screen of tabs that you flip through with the taskbar. Also Windows (at least XP and below) doesn't highlight the foreground window real well, so if you have a bunch of windows opened and showing, it's really hard to tell which one is the front most window.
Since OS X doesn't have the taskbar, it does a good job of highlighing the z-order of the windows, and it has stuff like Expose, having floating windows, rather than maximized windows, works really well. I always use a desktop manager like Spaces or VirtuaDesktops so I layout my windows and switch "spaces", rather than minimizing.
It's just a different way of approaching the problem.
OS X also uses drag and drop a whole lot more than Windows, so that necessitates having windows next to each other rather than on top of each other. Someone in Windows will always go to the right-click first, and old Mac user will try drag and drop first; which also explains why a right-click wasn't very important to Macs for a long time.
It's interesting to look back at Photoshop, which started out exclusively on the Mac. Older versions were very Mac-like, with many small floating windows. But once they came out with a Windows version and that became the dominant OS for their software, they started to make it more Windows like, without the floating windows. This happened to Macromedia's stuff too.
It's sad really, Logitech use to rock, but I'm getting more and more disappointed with their products. Am I really only left with Microsoft mice (which admittedly are good mice)?
Any opinions out there on really good quality mice, that work well in both Windows and OS X?
I'm a happy OS X user, who complains about Vista. Let's get two things straight:
1) Apple ships buggy 1.0 stuff, this has always been true, they are kind of known for it. This isn't a good thing, and Apple is pretty lame for doing this, as there really is no excuse for it. They do, however, fix the bugs pretty quick, usually within a week to a few months.
2) Vista has many, many problems, which are well documented. It isn't because Vista is new, I don't complain about bugs that they will obviously fix in a service pack (although they wait too long to release the first service pack), I complain about poor engineering decisions and design issues that aren't going to go away.
Oh and lastly, you'll get use to no task bar, and no maximize, and no start menu. At first, I found it all strange and difficult, but once I got use to it, I started looking for ways of changing Windows to make it more OS X-like.
Unfortunately, this trend to use an installer is starting to increase, which drives me crazy. Most of it is ported apps, from people who just aren't familiar with the way OS X works. I guess this is the price you pay for increased popularity of your platform.
It's true that more software on the Mac comes from independent developers. I really like this, most of what I use is either open-source or from someone small; which I'm happy to give my money too. One nice thing is, OS X is a small community, and if an app is good people talk about it, and if an app is bad people really talk about it. It's easy to be a tiny developer, and still get a major right-up in a national magazine, or sell your software on the shelf in an Apple store. Reminds me of the Windows market 10 years ago; sad how that has all changed over in that community.
Which is true, PCs are. They don't claim to be immune to viruses, that would be silly. If a computer can run software, then it can run software which copies itself automatically (virally). The problem comes when an OS allows a virus or worm, or malware to install itself automatically with no user interaction. And yes, if you do the math, OS X and Linux are hugely less susceptible to these kind of attacks then Windows (older versions, I know Vista is better).
Of course, if the user gives software admin rights, that software can do anything. There is no OS on the planet that can stop that.
Second off, I assume you mean software from small independent vendors, I'm curious why this type software isn't "proper software".
Lastly, you rarely "install" applications in OS X, it isn't Windows. You can run them from your own Applications folder which requires only your own rights. The apps that do require admin rights, are modifying the system in some way, and those do require you to give the administrator password. Since this dialog is rare, people do pay special attention when it pops up. There's only so much an OS designer can do.
Hey, wait a second... But you're dead... I saw the car go off the cliff myself... It can't be, it just can't... Dad, is that you?
I use OS X on my workstations, because I think it's the best *nix workstation at the moment, but I use Linux, exclusively on the server. I really need to try BSD. I really enjoy ports on OS X, so I'm sure I'd like it in BSD.
The only problem I run into on OS X is some of the GNU tools aren't there, and the BSD version of stuff like ls and such are different. But you can port install that stuff, so really that issue is mute. I think I'll fire up a virtual server and try out BSD
That would be wonderful if policies are created to be followed, they are not. I own a company, I've sat with my lawyers coming up with policies, they have very little to do with how I really want my employees to act, and a lot more to do with minimizing litigation risk. You have to actually fight to get your lawyer to allow your employees to use company equipment for appropriate personal activities. The bigger the company the more lawyers to fight.
Everyone knows this, thus why people really don't pay attention to such policies. When you get your oil changed, you sign a four page contract, do you read it? No, it's silly.
There is actually a protesting tactic used by truckers. It's a kind of strike. They start following all company and highway rules, precisely. They do this until their demands from the company are met. Strangely, companies yield fairly quickly; it's ironic that you can punish your employer by following their rules.
Amen brother. If you hire monkeys, I guess you need to build a lot of cages.
It all depends on what kind of developer one is. If your doing Windows desktop development, not giving the developer Admin rights to their machine is more than silly. As in the real world, you have to have that in Windows to do most anything. Frankly, that's a question I would ask if I were interviewing for a job, and if I didn't have full control over my development workstation and development servers, I wouldn't take the job, period; I'm not interesting in being non-productive, or working in a dev team that doesn't know how to setup their servers.
If the network has mission critical apps, and developers are working on networking code, then you isolate the development team from that network, at least for those ports. If the network can't handle me accidentially causing problems with my workstation, it can hardly handle someone purposly causing problems.
Now, I'll put on my other hat, the one where I develop using a Unix workstation for Unix servers. In this environment, I'm perfectly happy having no rights but my home folder. As you can work just fine without full rights in Unix; installing your own apps, changing your own settings, etc. Even so, if you can't trust your very expensive professional devs, then perhaps you need new devs.
As for developers building apps that don't require Admin rights, this is a QA issue, not an IT issue.
I have no interest having domain rights, or rights to production systems, especially mission critical production servers. But I do insist on control over my development machines. You wouldn't hire a contractor to build your house, then have him ask permission each time he needed a new tool from his tool chest, sure he can ruin your plumbing with his hammer, but he's a professional, trust him or replace him.
How do you count 2? I just tried it, here are the 3 different dialog boxes that appear:
Copy File
"There is already a file with the same name in this location..."
Destination Folder Access Denied
"You'll need to provide administrator permission to copy to this folder..."
User Account Control
"Windows needs your permission to continue..."
Why are there 3? Why not 1 that says "You are going to overwrite this, you'll need to be elevated to administrator, do you want do do this"? I know I'm no "Microsoft UI design expert", but it doesn't take one to realize that 3 dialog boxes compared to one just annoys the hell out of users.
And I've never used the beta, only the version released, and I'll badmouth UAC anytime someone asks about it. Because I know for a fact, that my users simply disable it because it's so annoying, thus defeating the whole point to begin with.
First off, good job on the huge number of replies. No better way to get a lot of responses than to insult the average /. reader.
Second, if you really think that the general IT worker has any control over any of this, you're living in a fantasy world. People do what they have to to make whomever is paying them happy; and that certainly isn't the users. The IT worker doesn't create these rules, or this environment, you need to look a little higher, perhaps the CIO (CTO) or his/her boss the COO.
I'm not a an IT worker, but a developer, and I get basically the same kind of comments "Programmers don't understand users... blah blah blah". As if us "programmers" have any say, what-so-ever over how many applications are designed in large corporations. Here is how it works: because software is expensive to develop, the high level people (CTO, COO, and sometimes even the CEO) insist on being intimately involved in the process. Even those these people have never used the current software, and will never use the new software, they tell you exactly how it should work. Of course these people have absolutely no experience designing software, but anyone can do it right? You would think that, perhaps, they'd have a real user sit in on the meetings, to help figure out what would work best for them to do their job. You would think, but sadly, this rarely happens. Of course there are good companies who's goal is to actually help the users do their jobs better, but this is the exception not the rule; most companies care about politics, power, and person gain above all else.
Both OS X and Linux have the same concept of elevated privileges. Vista copied this concept. It's a good concept, of which no one would argue. It's Vista's implementation of the concept that is bad.
Wether you believe it or not, when people started using Vista, the complaints started rolling in over UAC. These complaints don't occur in OS X, nor distros of Linux, such as Ubuntu, which use the same concept. So either there's a global conspiracy to badmouth Vista, and only Vista, or perhaps, just perhaps, there is something wrong with UAC in Vista.
Copy a file to a folder in Program Files. You get 3 dialog boxes asking you various questions, 3! Um, perhaps we can take up a collection and send it to Microsoft so they they can hire some offshore programmers to turn that into 1.
What you say is very true. However, you need to actually learn the concepts. I was talking to a programmer, with a little more than a year experience doing "web application development". I put that in quotes, because he has been doing ASP.net, successfully I imagine, and he didn't have the slightest idea how web pages actually worked. I was trying to explain Post and Put in HTTP, and it was like I was speaking greek. This is the problem.
* One is I started out as Microsoft developer, some VB, but mostly Visual C++. I also worked at a company that did a lot of FoxPro and some Visual J. You're to young to remember this, as you're just starting out, but the problem with knowing non-standard technologies, is they can and will be taken away from you. I mentioned FoxPro and Visual J, because those were, and those developers were left high and dry. Heck, I know plenty of VB developers that complain bitterly about Microsoft dropping them (and no, VB.NET isn't VB, other than in appearance). VB was one of the most popular languages, and Microsoft just dropped it. Once you've been around for a while, you see this happen time and time again; your
* The other problem I have is that the world is far from black and white. And even all Microsoft shops will have 3rd party tools come into their domain and they will have to work with them. Plus companies need to work with other companies, and you can't control what they will have. You WILL be exposed to non-Microsoft technology, and your boss WILL expect you to make it work, NOW. After years and years of this, you start to change your mind about what you should be learning.
Microsoft can make excellent tools that support industry and de-facto standards. And they would be very good at this, and they would make lots of money. But they refuse too, because "lots of money" isn't "all the money", and thus isn't good enough for them. I supported them for a long, long time; but like an abusive father, one day you start to punch back, and then you leave; because you realize, it's just not worth it anymore.
And this is the fundamental problem with using Microsoft technology. You can argue about this or that, but the main reason I don't spend much time using it is because it limits my skills. If you learn Microsoft technology, then your are basically limited to Microsoft technology; because they so often refuse to use standards, and insist on going their own way. If you learn Unix technologies, your skill is transferable to almost every other OS except Windows.
It's a brilliant business move by Microsoft, and the reason that IT people who work in Microsoft shops are so defensive of their technology. If their company changes to anything else, they will have very limited applicable skills.
I personally work with OS X and Linux, but if everyone wanted to change to Solaris, I could care less, after a day of getting adjusted, I'd be back up to full speed.
Sometimes things need to get really bad, before people wake up and make changes.
Perhaps, a company should be created, whose sole purpose to to flood the patent office with patent applications with things like "Sticky substance used to attach two or more objects" and "Method of training an animal with verbal direction and praise", to be followed with "Method of training an animal with verbal direction and hand motions", "Method of training an animal with verbal direction and hand motions, while standing or sitting in a field of grass".
Of course all these will pass, effortlessly. Then when the company, literally, has a patent on every method and product in existence things will change... possibly.