Using the software should not require admin/root privliges while installation can. The way I have seen linux boxes usually set up is they work along in user mode and when someone needs new software they either switch to root to install it or get an admin to do it. Windows should be able to do the same.
They can, its just little used or known about. Simply right click the install file, "Run as..." and you can type your admin username and p/w and your away, it installs as if run by the administrator.
I'm sorry, perhaps because my point was simple I didn't make it clear enough: people should not need admin privliges to run the software. Switching users to install the software is not really the issue.
You don't want users to be able to install software.
Restricting users to preinstalled software does raise security. But users have traditionally had the ability to install and run software inside their home directories, and this is the default in XP, OS X, and UNIX. I'm not even sure it is possible in XP to keep execute permissions off homedirs.
Realise that a plugin is software. If you can't install the plugin that pulls the RSS feed then you also can install a bad plugin that strips email addresses out of webpages and sends those users spam.
Restricting someone to a limited account does not keep them from running software, just running software that wants to do certain things, like mess with the registry, %system32%, etc. Sending email is not one of those things. A firewall that allowed network acess only to preapproved programs on preapproved ports would be a real solution.
If your installing and uninstalling software constanly then you ARE and admin (or doing admin work). You only want an admin to be able to install plugins as they affect every user on the machine.
So now we're talking about users affecting other users. Sure I should be kept from adding plugins that will make your browser act differently than you are used to. But the browser should let me install plugins from within my homedir that affect only me.
That being said in windows if you wanted to install a plugin then just run firefox as administrator while your installing it.
That is reasonable when I as the admin want to make a plugin available for all users. But the option to install a plugin just for my own use should be available. And these users that we are trying to stop from "installing bad plugins" shouldn't have the administrator login.
Hold down + and right click on the icon on the desktop. There will be a new option called "Run As" this means you can run it as administrator to install the plugin then close it and reopen it as a limited user.
Just a note: limited users in XP have this "Run as" option available without the +.
Does this mean more work? YES. That's why most users run as administrator
The point is, program writers and the Windows secrity model make this much harder than it needs to be, and sometimes impossible.
There is a difference between installing software and using it. Using the software should not require admin/root privliges while installation can. The way I have seen linux boxes usually set up is they work along in user mode and when someone needs new software they either switch to root to install it or get an admin to do it. Windows should be able to do the same.
When the cash offers becomes so large that OSS developers start to sweat and their knees get weak....will the "IDEAL" be enough any more? Will the culture survive or will it sell out?
It will survive. This is why the GPL is so important: people can't "sell out". The liscence keeps them honest and their software fully Free. It is because of this protection that OSS cannot be fully co-opted by a corporate system of control.
That's a terrible comparison. Flashlights have one operation: toggle off/on and are cheap both to buy and maintain. Radios are far more complicated and far more expensive to buy with some maintainence costs.
I have actually bought a few pills and potions. You may not believe me, but they really do work. My new wife can attest to that.
People tend to brush off these advertisements without much thought, but have you ever considered what they could do for you? If you are interested, post your email adress in reply and I'll mail you some valuable information absolutely free of charge or obligation to buy.
Yes it's incorrect, but it's not far wrong. The 2.0 Ghz through 2.6 Ghz P4s for example are all the same chip. They take the chips and label them at the highest clockspeed they are stable at.
Most don't. Most consider "does this browser work with my banking site" as a feature. If it doesn't, they pass up Firefox/Opera/Safari.
People don't consider that a "feature", it's a requirement. Features are things like bookmarks, history, tabbed browsing, and saved passwords. Features are things that are nice but not nessicary. To get the best product you look at all the ones that meet the requirements (the ones that work for your bank site) and then compare them on features (and price).
lets say you get run over by a car when you crossed an intersection. Lets say if you crossed that intersection two minutes ago you would not have been run over. Well prior to crossing the street I happend to speak with you for two minutes - if we didn't speak you would not have been run over. While this example is ridiculous - a jury could say it is my fault for preventing you from going on your way earlier.
With a case like this you could claim that you had no way of knowing. If a "perfect person" with your sensory information (including what you "should have known") would do just as you did, you can't be liable. Also note that delaying someone by two minutes on the street can just as well keep them out of the way of an accident.
I have never met anyone who uses a computer and doesn't realize the difference between left click, right click and double click.
You may not have, but then you've probably not been around the right group of people. Working at a college help desk there are lots of people who make mistakes with what sort of click. Probably the worst is when people double-click on a toggle button like a "connect" button. The first click starts it; the second stops it. And very confusing to diagnose over the phone.
This is not to say that everyone is stupid, just that there are aspects of using a basic GUI that many people don't know.
That's what he was doing and what were doing as well. Self correcting doesn't mean we can just sit back and it will be corrected. Self correcting means that if we act as typical people do it will be corrected. And our complaining is acting in a typical person way.
They want to claim OSS is a superior model, and that the software that OSS produces is better than commercial. However they also want to hide under the "It's free, no gaurentees, fix it yourself" flag. Well, you can't have it both ways
Yes you can. OSS is a better model that usually puts out better software in the end. But part of that approach is a stage where the software is not yet done and still needs testing, bug fixes, and features. And sometimes it is not clear where in the process a given project is.
mycar$ ssh root@hiscar The authenticity of host 'hiscar' can't be established. RSA key fingerprint is f8:6a:52:76:32:21:a0:a1:aa:44:69:9c:14:e8:a7:b9. Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes Warning: Permanently added 'hiscar' (RSA) to the list of known hosts.
The link you give says nothing of the sort. All the linked programs require (the illegal) libcss to play DVDs that are protected with CSS. That means with Linux even if you own the DVD and the DVD player, you still cannot watch the DVD legally.
Except the EULA gives MS the right to update its terms at any time with you bound by the updated version. So having a "live" website doesn't really change things.
Those hashes are useful for at least two reasons:
1. They let me verify that the file downloaded properly.
2. If I downloaded from a less trustworthy mirror, I can check the hash in a more trustworthy place.
if you strip the cost of windows xp home off of This computer It's only about 800 CAD
The computer lists for $1000 CAD. Windows XP home OEM is somewhere in the $50 range. And the laptop you point to is much better than the $500 one in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Debian stable is no fun to run on your desktop. But for your servers and public area machines it's the best choice.
They can, its just little used or known about. Simply right click the install file, "Run as..." and you can type your admin username and p/w and your away, it installs as if run by the administrator.
I'm sorry, perhaps because my point was simple I didn't make it clear enough: people should not need admin privliges to run the software. Switching users to install the software is not really the issue.
Restricting users to preinstalled software does raise security. But users have traditionally had the ability to install and run software inside their home directories, and this is the default in XP, OS X, and UNIX. I'm not even sure it is possible in XP to keep execute permissions off homedirs.
Realise that a plugin is software. If you can't install the plugin that pulls the RSS feed then you also can install a bad plugin that strips email addresses out of webpages and sends those users spam.
Restricting someone to a limited account does not keep them from running software, just running software that wants to do certain things, like mess with the registry, %system32%, etc. Sending email is not one of those things. A firewall that allowed network acess only to preapproved programs on preapproved ports would be a real solution.
If your installing and uninstalling software constanly then you ARE and admin (or doing admin work). You only want an admin to be able to install plugins as they affect every user on the machine.
So now we're talking about users affecting other users. Sure I should be kept from adding plugins that will make your browser act differently than you are used to. But the browser should let me install plugins from within my homedir that affect only me.
That being said in windows if you wanted to install a plugin then just run firefox as administrator while your installing it.
That is reasonable when I as the admin want to make a plugin available for all users. But the option to install a plugin just for my own use should be available. And these users that we are trying to stop from "installing bad plugins" shouldn't have the administrator login.
Hold down + and right click on the icon on the desktop. There will be a new option called "Run As" this means you can run it as administrator to install the plugin then close it and reopen it as a limited user.
Just a note: limited users in XP have this "Run as" option available without the +.
Does this mean more work? YES. That's why most users run as administrator
The point is, program writers and the Windows secrity model make this much harder than it needs to be, and sometimes impossible.
There is a difference between installing software and using it. Using the software should not require admin/root privliges while installation can. The way I have seen linux boxes usually set up is they work along in user mode and when someone needs new software they either switch to root to install it or get an admin to do it. Windows should be able to do the same.
Perhaps that's because of a scarcity factor more than the weight change. Or it may be more tied to the general shortage of jovial developers.
Once a comment has been repeatedly flamed, perhaps the "flamebait" label is a bit late?
It will survive. This is why the GPL is so important: people can't "sell out". The liscence keeps them honest and their software fully Free. It is because of this protection that OSS cannot be fully co-opted by a corporate system of control.
That's a terrible comparison. Flashlights have one operation: toggle off/on and are cheap both to buy and maintain. Radios are far more complicated and far more expensive to buy with some maintainence costs.
People tend to brush off these advertisements without much thought, but have you ever considered what they could do for you? If you are interested, post your email adress in reply and I'll mail you some valuable information absolutely free of charge or obligation to buy.
no
Yes it's incorrect, but it's not far wrong. The 2.0 Ghz through 2.6 Ghz P4s for example are all the same chip. They take the chips and label them at the highest clockspeed they are stable at.
Most don't. Most consider "does this browser work with my banking site" as a feature. If it doesn't, they pass up Firefox/Opera/Safari.
People don't consider that a "feature", it's a requirement. Features are things like bookmarks, history, tabbed browsing, and saved passwords. Features are things that are nice but not nessicary. To get the best product you look at all the ones that meet the requirements (the ones that work for your bank site) and then compare them on features (and price).
With a case like this you could claim that you had no way of knowing. If a "perfect person" with your sensory information (including what you "should have known") would do just as you did, you can't be liable. Also note that delaying someone by two minutes on the street can just as well keep them out of the way of an accident.
Car analogies are analagous to DRM "solutions" in that they rarely work.
You may not have, but then you've probably not been around the right group of people. Working at a college help desk there are lots of people who make mistakes with what sort of click. Probably the worst is when people double-click on a toggle button like a "connect" button. The first click starts it; the second stops it. And very confusing to diagnose over the phone.
This is not to say that everyone is stupid, just that there are aspects of using a basic GUI that many people don't know.
That's what he was doing and what were doing as well. Self correcting doesn't mean we can just sit back and it will be corrected. Self correcting means that if we act as typical people do it will be corrected. And our complaining is acting in a typical person way.
Yes you can. OSS is a better model that usually puts out better software in the end. But part of that approach is a stage where the software is not yet done and still needs testing, bug fixes, and features. And sometimes it is not clear where in the process a given project is.
The link you give says nothing of the sort. All the linked programs require (the illegal) libcss to play DVDs that are protected with CSS. That means with Linux even if you own the DVD and the DVD player, you still cannot watch the DVD legally.
Except the EULA gives MS the right to update its terms at any time with you bound by the updated version. So having a "live" website doesn't really change things.
This is a current problem with IE that Firefox only provides temporary relief for. In this aspect IE and FF are equal. On many others FF is ahead.
Those hashes are useful for at least two reasons: 1. They let me verify that the file downloaded properly. 2. If I downloaded from a less trustworthy mirror, I can check the hash in a more trustworthy place.
And a selling point of Linspire is the "Click 'n Run" catalog of "1,900 Programs you can use free!". See their marketing page.
The computer lists for $1000 CAD. Windows XP home OEM is somewhere in the $50 range. And the laptop you point to is much better than the $500 one in the article.
Or what about installing IE with Wine?