It's a left-leaning site. I have NEVER seen a right-leaning article approved here. Ever.
I think the reason for that should be pretty self-evident. Just look at the left's policies from the perspective of the average Slashdot geek:
Welfare: Because working takes time away from completing my tier 17 class set
No war: Because I can only hit stuff in Counterstrike
No warrant-less surveillance: Because not everyone in my private collection is 18
Anti-trust legislation: Because Microsoft needs to die
Abortion: Because if I ever manage to find a girl that'll sleep with me, I sure don't want to have to worry about multiplication errors
Gay marriage: Because I'll probably never find that girl anyway
Holy crap. Do you actually expect somebody to buy that? Well, if anybody is going to, it will be the "power users" like you and me, who have very little on the line, in terms of money. I don't know what planet you think you're on, but here, when the executives at a company find out that they're gonna have to write their own fixes for critical bugs in a piece of software they already paid for (or, alternately, have to rely on fixes written by someone they don't even know, or simply pay again for the same software), everyone who recommended using said software (and probably lots of people who didn't have a say in the matter, but had to work on the transition anyway) is gonna be looking for a new job.
Allow me to take you through a little tour of your post and the way the world works. Fact: she was running as admin when she performed the exploit Fact: admin on Windows is the Unix equivalent of root Fact: root means total and complete control of the machine, including the ability to install drivers Fact: on most operating systems (and just about all commercial operating systems, for speed reasons), drivers run as ring 0
Ergo, you just said that RUNNING AS ROOT IS A SECURITY HOLE. Yah (god of wisdom) incarnate, ladies and gentlemen.
So the black hats manage to penetrate Vista... from admin mode. You run any OS as root and the box is already owned. Actually, this might be a good sign for Vista. If this is all the black hats could come up with, wouldn't that put Vista among the most secure OS ever made? Of course, there's always the plausible deniability that the black hats just haven't published any of the REAL Vista exploits yet.
Yes and no. That was a limitation of Windows 9x (a holdover from DOS and Unix), and still exists in the ANSI versions of the NT APIs. However, the native NT Unicode APIs support 32k characters for the path. I don't know if there's a 255 char limit on individual names for NT, off the top of my head. Though it's possible that the number of programs still using the ANSI APIs (since the Unicode version only works on NT, but the ANSI version works on 9x as well) may impose an artificial limit of 255 char paths on your file system.
This would be Windows XP Pro on a stand-alone computer (my home computer), running Office 2003 and Visual Studio 2005 (I use those for all my university stuff, as well as my own amusement). Seriously, I've NEVER had to use runas to run a non-admin Microsoft program because it won't work properly on a limited user (yes, I'm defining installing new programs as admin stuff); ever. Though I must admit I've only tried running as a limited user on XP within the last couple years, and it could also help that I make sure I install the features of things like Office 2003 I need the first time around. Perhaps you could give some specific examples of major problems you've had.
Though I'll definitely admit that file permissions can be a bitch to deal with if you want to share stuff between different users/computers, or (heaven forbid) try to recover files from a physically damaged drive (I had the joyous experience of doing that; that's why I've only had this current installation of XP for six months or so). Or if you like to use naughty little programs like World of Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights, or WinAmp (had to deal with this problem a while back; dunno if they fixed it by now) which assume they can write to their directory in Program Files whenever they want.
I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Microsoft employees running as admin means two things. Of course it means that they don't have to worry about programs that require admin (or have bugs if not used in admin mode). But even in this case, your hostility is misdirected. MS produces some of the programs most capable of performing correctly in limited user situations I've ever seen (in fact, I can't think of any notable bugs in MS programs when running as limited user, apart from obviously administrative programs, like chkdsk or defrag). That's why I was completely indifferent to the news that MS employees might have to run as limited users: they already know how to play nicely in the limited user situation. What REALLY needs to happen is that third-party developers who write these steaming pile of shit programs need to be forced to use limited user mode. There's absolutely no reason some of these programs (Intuit's It'sDeductable comes readily to mind) need to be admin.
However, running as admin opens them up to all the nasty exploits and viruses (especially if they're using IE), those being probably the biggest blunder on Microsoft's part. As a limited user, a virus can delete your MP3s and porn. As admin, a virus can reformat your entire hard drive, install a rootkit, etc. If that isn't eating your own dog food, I don't know what is.
Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained. I'm in a pretty big hurry:P
I like how someone who didn't even read the article, and so got their entire post wrong, got 5-insightful. Apparently at least 4 people with mod points didn't read the article, either.
You came a hair's breadth from winning with that argument; but not close enough. Remember that most people would rather pay for things that work than get things that don't work for free. Better to spend more money now to buy a car than to spend more money later to get it fixed (or even worse, spend time to fix it yourself). The logic that you get what you pay for doesn't fly when people WANT something that works out of the box. If Linux cannot deliver that, then STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO USE LINUX, BECAUSE THEY'D RATHER PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT CAN.
I see the order of the tags has shifted around at various points today. Like, "truth" started out on the right of the list of tags (at least the first time I saw it), and is now the leftmost tag. What does the order of the tags mean?
The first amendment (specifically the freedom of speech clause) exists for the specific purpose of preventing the government from controlling all information (as in the case of the USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.). As you say, the government does not need to control information to oppress its people; but that doesn't change the fact that anyone controlling all information can be devastating in and of itself, regardless of whether the government is the one doing so. Thus it was a perfectly apt comparison.
Again I suggest you read up on labor before labor laws. Might also want to read the history of credit reports, and why you are now legally entitled to view your own credit report.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a left-leaning site. I have NEVER seen a right-leaning article approved here. Ever.
I think the reason for that should be pretty self-evident. Just look at the left's policies from the perspective of the average Slashdot geek:
Welfare: Because working takes time away from completing my tier 17 class set
No war: Because I can only hit stuff in Counterstrike
No warrant-less surveillance: Because not everyone in my private collection is 18
Anti-trust legislation: Because Microsoft needs to die
Abortion: Because if I ever manage to find a girl that'll sleep with me, I sure don't want to have to worry about multiplication errors
Gay marriage: Because I'll probably never find that girl anyway
Need I go on?
it's not the desktop!
Can somebody tell me who invented that "3. ?? 4. profit!" thing? I need to know who to stab repeatedly with my mechanical pencil.
Spam goes in cans. How the heck do you not know this?
In other words, you think that if you close your eyes nobody can see you.
Because some people act ethically? No, wait, this is congress. My bad.
Holy crap. Do you actually expect somebody to buy that? Well, if anybody is going to, it will be the "power users" like you and me, who have very little on the line, in terms of money. I don't know what planet you think you're on, but here, when the executives at a company find out that they're gonna have to write their own fixes for critical bugs in a piece of software they already paid for (or, alternately, have to rely on fixes written by someone they don't even know, or simply pay again for the same software), everyone who recommended using said software (and probably lots of people who didn't have a say in the matter, but had to work on the transition anyway) is gonna be looking for a new job.
And don't forget this!
(meant to be mildly humorous in a nerdy sort of way)
Allow me to take you through a little tour of your post and the way the world works.
Fact: she was running as admin when she performed the exploit
Fact: admin on Windows is the Unix equivalent of root
Fact: root means total and complete control of the machine, including the ability to install drivers
Fact: on most operating systems (and just about all commercial operating systems, for speed reasons), drivers run as ring 0
Ergo, you just said that RUNNING AS ROOT IS A SECURITY HOLE. Yah (god of wisdom) incarnate, ladies and gentlemen.
So the black hats manage to penetrate Vista... from admin mode. You run any OS as root and the box is already owned. Actually, this might be a good sign for Vista. If this is all the black hats could come up with, wouldn't that put Vista among the most secure OS ever made? Of course, there's always the plausible deniability that the black hats just haven't published any of the REAL Vista exploits yet.
Yes and no. That was a limitation of Windows 9x (a holdover from DOS and Unix), and still exists in the ANSI versions of the NT APIs. However, the native NT Unicode APIs support 32k characters for the path. I don't know if there's a 255 char limit on individual names for NT, off the top of my head. Though it's possible that the number of programs still using the ANSI APIs (since the Unicode version only works on NT, but the ANSI version works on 9x as well) may impose an artificial limit of 255 char paths on your file system.
To clarify that last paragraph: I needed admin access for fixing most of the permission problems mentioned.
This would be Windows XP Pro on a stand-alone computer (my home computer), running Office 2003 and Visual Studio 2005 (I use those for all my university stuff, as well as my own amusement). Seriously, I've NEVER had to use runas to run a non-admin Microsoft program because it won't work properly on a limited user (yes, I'm defining installing new programs as admin stuff); ever. Though I must admit I've only tried running as a limited user on XP within the last couple years, and it could also help that I make sure I install the features of things like Office 2003 I need the first time around. Perhaps you could give some specific examples of major problems you've had.
Though I'll definitely admit that file permissions can be a bitch to deal with if you want to share stuff between different users/computers, or (heaven forbid) try to recover files from a physically damaged drive (I had the joyous experience of doing that; that's why I've only had this current installation of XP for six months or so). Or if you like to use naughty little programs like World of Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights, or WinAmp (had to deal with this problem a while back; dunno if they fixed it by now) which assume they can write to their directory in Program Files whenever they want.
I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Microsoft employees running as admin means two things. Of course it means that they don't have to worry about programs that require admin (or have bugs if not used in admin mode). But even in this case, your hostility is misdirected. MS produces some of the programs most capable of performing correctly in limited user situations I've ever seen (in fact, I can't think of any notable bugs in MS programs when running as limited user, apart from obviously administrative programs, like chkdsk or defrag). That's why I was completely indifferent to the news that MS employees might have to run as limited users: they already know how to play nicely in the limited user situation. What REALLY needs to happen is that third-party developers who write these steaming pile of shit programs need to be forced to use limited user mode. There's absolutely no reason some of these programs (Intuit's It'sDeductable comes readily to mind) need to be admin.
:P
However, running as admin opens them up to all the nasty exploits and viruses (especially if they're using IE), those being probably the biggest blunder on Microsoft's part. As a limited user, a virus can delete your MP3s and porn. As admin, a virus can reformat your entire hard drive, install a rootkit, etc. If that isn't eating your own dog food, I don't know what is.
Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained. I'm in a pretty big hurry
You deserve a Nobel prize for that
But I suddenly have a tremendous urge to go mailing crates of blank DVDs to random people around the world.
Not much else to say, here.
I like how someone who didn't even read the article, and so got their entire post wrong, got 5-insightful. Apparently at least 4 people with mod points didn't read the article, either.
Amazing 2 in 1 machine assists in space research while extracting information from uncooperative terrorists! A bargain for your tax dollars!
This is just another weapon for Bushitler's arsenal against civil liberties and free thought!
You came a hair's breadth from winning with that argument; but not close enough. Remember that most people would rather pay for things that work than get things that don't work for free. Better to spend more money now to buy a car than to spend more money later to get it fixed (or even worse, spend time to fix it yourself). The logic that you get what you pay for doesn't fly when people WANT something that works out of the box. If Linux cannot deliver that, then STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO USE LINUX, BECAUSE THEY'D RATHER PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT CAN.
I see the order of the tags has shifted around at various points today. Like, "truth" started out on the right of the list of tags (at least the first time I saw it), and is now the leftmost tag. What does the order of the tags mean?
Damed if you do, damed if you don't.
EXACTLY what I thought when I read that headline (well, minus the spelling error...)
Go right ahead and provide evidence of malicious intent, and we'll listen.
The first amendment (specifically the freedom of speech clause) exists for the specific purpose of preventing the government from controlling all information (as in the case of the USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.). As you say, the government does not need to control information to oppress its people; but that doesn't change the fact that anyone controlling all information can be devastating in and of itself, regardless of whether the government is the one doing so. Thus it was a perfectly apt comparison.
Again I suggest you read up on labor before labor laws. Might also want to read the history of credit reports, and why you are now legally entitled to view your own credit report.