MorphOS is in relative terms 'Amiga' alike and can run older Amiga programs with a JIT emulator at great speed in comparison to older Amiga based systems.
So, for anyone who had an interest, what this offers is basically a faster Amiga, modernised quite a bit, and with more resources.
In this, there is a large library of software and so on that is around from the time Amiga's were in wider use, and for anyone who has an old Amiga thats on deaths door, this offers one modern way forward.
You can do similar things with WinUAE or UAE, however, emulation is all well and good, but having real hardware and modernised software is always one good avenue.
Lastly, its a single user, exec alike OS, so its fast in terms of look and feel, on a level that more modern OSs cannot match. Off course, its actually raw processing power is only whatever the cpu's offer, so it tends to only be look and feel in nature.
I've worked inside on things since windows 3.1 I've worked with security products over the same period. I've worked with Users, and in terms of compliance, and in terms of business. I've worked with and for and around vendors.
Today, we are multi generations of the base consumer OS later.
The real world security model is so broken as to be an actual joke.
The security models in use are also now so broken as to be an actual joke.
Application and vendor companies are still shipping products today, multi generations later in this consumer area that require the logged in user to run with administration rights when using the program.
Security products have been failing for several years. And there is no chance whatsoever that security products can mitigate and bulwark off computers against the fact that software is fundamentally flawed, but worse yet, globally end users are running the majority of applications, tools, utilties and processes with administrator rights.
Even with the onset of Vista and with Windows 7, the voluntary compliance in view of UAC is simply ignored. Most home users switch off and blithly click click click, and the smarter ones would be utterly ignored when reporting to vendors to have culpative changes made to end software. With no punitive action being faced there is very little to persuade vendors and software producers to actually secure and improve their programs, APIs, frameworks, and Features.
Security vendors rarely step forward to make demands in light of admin rights, - and their whole industry is based on the equivilent in Pharma terms - dragons penises and the maagical effects of it as a healing agent towards keeping clients secure.
Most security products are at best woefully inadaquate, and in many cases have no idea malware and foreign code is running wild on systems they are 'protecting'. Years ago, they should have been driving the use of admin rights on the desktop away. But again, with no punative penalty for failures, they can continue selling utterly flawed models and generations of products that are patently unable to do what they are supposedly designed to do.
I don't entirely blame them, but the failure to drive the admin rights issue is the fundamental flaw in this, along with faulty vendor products, and faulty third party software products.
Here are AdmV0rl0ns laws. 1. The model of software development has to change. And change fundamentally. For several decades - software has been built along very odd engineering lines. Companies are allowed almost a free hand in terms of punitive licensing, and in terms of licensing, and gain enormous protection from the state, and freedom of the state in terms of copyright and other protection.
In most cases, every single line of code written has been accompanied with a substantive 'If the world burns down because of this software, or because of anything this software does, then we cannot be held accountable, good luck.'.
This cannot continue. In the real world, no such engineering is acceptable. Bridges are not shoddy affairs put up and then handed over to the paying taxpayer, customer or business with an cast iron guarantee that the bridge builder is excempt from 'everything'.
Consumers don't buy a car, and then are forced by laws and licenses to sign over all their rights and if the wheels fly off the car, the maker gets exeption from all responsibility.
In terms of OS development, The vendor has to be brought to account, and it has to develop and security test APIs and function to a level where the wheels do not fly off. And where security becomes a functional demand. And if this change cannot be gained by voluntary method, then the law needs changing so punitive damages are available to those who suffer failures from software.
It has to be remembered, many of these companies make millions, perhaps even billions, and yet avoid any examination of their products actual safety and engineering. Windows XP and its subsequent service packs w
When will people get it? Sony rootkitted people's PCs and did so insecurly to boot.
They sold the original PS3 with a list of specifications and base functions, and removal of these where they were sold with them is clearly fundamentally a breach.
It would be very interesting to delve and see how Sony transported these across the globe and what original tax bases and statements were made. Computers and consoles get varying differences in tariffs and import duties.
But at the end of the day, Its Sony's responsibility to protect the game development and copy protection area. That is in their interest, however, removing paid for accepted features is simply not acceptable.
What next? Blu ray? Old games? This is partially a fault with creeping 'rentalisation' where its being in vogue that the console and everything connected to it does not belong to you. But even if this is the case, you bought the big old PS3 at a price premium, and one of its features the OS option.
At the end of the day, a customer paid a lot of money for something, and parts are being made non functional - quite deliberatly.
Sony repeatedly crap on customers, and have a very grim outlook towards them. Wether its getting your sony equipment repaired, rootkits being installed on your equipment without permission, or functions being removed from you equipment - Sony is a compny unfit for your custom and its time you enforced it.
The invasion of Poland resulted in Great Britain and the Dominions, and France declaring war on Germany. I rather trust their view more than yours.
As for the rest of your garbage I don't need to say much, others have already said enough to cover it previously.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Winston Churchill
"If I were asked the difference between Socialism and Communism, I could only reply that the Socialist tries to lead us to disaster by foolish words and the Communist drives us there by violent deeds."
"Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State."
"Government of the duds, by the duds, and for the duds."
"No socialist system can be established without a political police."
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
"It is not alone that property, in all its forms, is struck at, but that liberty, in all its forms, is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of socialism."
"'All men are created equal' says the American Declaration of Independence. 'All men shall be kept equal' say the Socialists."
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory animal to be shot, others look on it as a cow to be milked but a few see it as a sturdy horse pulling a wagon."
"If you destroy a free market, you create a black market."
"The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of misery."
"Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual."
"Is it better to have equality at the price of poverty or well-being at the price of inequality?"
"The flame of Christian ethics is still our best guide...only on this basis can we reconcile the rights of the individual with the demands of society."
On leftists:
"They are the most disagreeable of people...Their insincerity? Can you not feel a sense of disgust at the arrogant presumption of superiority of these people? Superiority of intellect! Then, when it comes to practice, down they fall with a wallop not only to the level of ordinary human beings but to a level which is even far below the average."
"These very high intellectual persons who wake up every morning...see what they can find to demolish, to undermine, or cast away."
"Let them quit these gospels of envy, hate, and malice. Let them abandon the utter fallacy, the grotesque, erroneous, fatal blunder of believing that by limiting the enterprise of man, by riveting the shackles of a false equality...they will increase the well-being of the world."
On Communism:
"Bolshevism is not a policy; it is a disease."
"The day will come when it will be recognized without doubt throughout the civilized world that the strangling of Bolshevism at birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race."
What an interesting mismatch of fact, propaganda, and ignorance.
Where to start?
* Pre soviet Russia, was very backwards. Look at their performance in WW I where they showed up with ancient weaponry.
* It was a super power, no other way to describe a country that controlled half of the world, put the first man & satellite in space and was capable of destroying the world umpteen times over.
* Yes, it was a super power *AFTER* WW I, not before or during.
* And finally, being a super power doesn't mean you are a nice guy. If that's a requirement to super power, then yes it was not a super power.
I neither endorse nor condone any violent actions the Soviet Union performed during its history, but your account was just too messed up to leave un commented upon.
Most sides in WW1 turned up with ancient weaponary. The advancements came during the war, not really before it. Or maybe you've never read about the appalling losses and complete stalemates of WW1.
As for the rest of your inept garbage, I have little care for socialists or and especially communists, or their spewing of idiocy. The death of the communist Soviet was and remains one of the great days in human history.
It also butchered it's own people by the 10's of millions.
It has not. Simply by the fact that the USSR was able to sustain the population after the second world war. FYI the soviet losses in the WW2 were about 20 millions. The total population of the whole USSR was about 100 millions in 1920ies. If there really were tens of millions butchered then by 1945 the USSR would have a population of 50 millions or less. Frankly, it was not the case.
And yes, russian empire was as backwards as it gets.
The Russian populace at 1920 was around 137,727,000 , so you can quit lying.
On 26 January 1934 Joseph Stalin reported to the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party as one of the main achievements "Growth of population from 160.5 millions in the end of 1930 to the 168 millions in the end of 1933". On 1 December 1935 Joseph Stalin made a speech, on the Meeting of Kolkhozniks with the Soviet and Party leaders: “ Everybody says that the material situation of workers has dramatically improved, that life has become better and more fun. It is of course true. But this has led the population to breed much faster than in the old days. The birth rate is higher, the death rate is lower and the pure population growth is far stronger. It is of course good and we welcome it. [Jolly murmurs in the auditorium.] Now every year we have a population growth of three million souls. It means that every year we grow as much as the whole of Finland. [Everybody laughs.] ”
Combining his reports, one could have expected to have a population of about 180 million in 1937.
Official statistics based on the registered birth and death rates implied that the 1937 census should show a population of 170-172 million. On 21 September 1935 Sovnarkom adopted a decision On the organization of registration of natural population changes most probably authored by Stalin
Stalin's population growth, meant that he enforced a change in the agrarian system - one that was implemented by force and was focused on the Kulaks and 'mechanised farming' According to data from Soviet archives, which were published in 1990, 1,803,392 people were sent to labour colonies and camps in 1930 and 1931. Books say that 1,317,022 reached the destination. The remaining 486,370 may have died or escaped.
In the region of 24 million people, civilian and military were lost in WW2, but you can add in plenty there was killed by their own side, in the red human sausage machine.
Afterwards, millions were enslaved, and sent or killed by the regime, and stalin's words ever echo in the imphamy of history; "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic".
The butchering of people by the 10's of millions might be an expression too far, but millions fits, and thats before any expression about the misery caused to the rest of the populations involved in soviet misery
It lasted 50 years, and turned a backwards agrarian society into a world superpower and put the first man in space.
Pre Soviet Russia was not a backwards agrarian society, any more than other states were.
It was never a world super power, but it was a nuclear one, driven by fear after being driven by hate.
The soviets were so powerful, they signed a pact with Nazi Germany, and offered many congratulations to Hitler, each time he domino'd a single state, including france. And during this time it decided to get a bloody nose picking on Finland.
Afterwards, when the panzers rolled across these so called previous agrarian lands, the soviets screamed for a second front from people it had cast into the fires of history to be crushed while it stood by and watched (and in the case of Poland, decided to go join the fun.)
Despite all is supposed power, it spread a failed political doctrine far and wide, caused untold damage to the planet, and now 1 in 5 people have an AK47, and a higher percentage have failed and weak governments. It never got true amphibious power, and spent the whole cold war in agressive posture, yet never able to make a move, failing in the end because of its own weight, and inability to go on.
And this summary does not count the millions killed and enslaved and left in misery by this comparitive short period in human history.
Oh don't worry, You won't quit publishing garbage, because its what good socialist and communists do.
I lost interest when it became clear that the BBC was using the good doctor to push homosexual tendencies and politics onto children. Thats after its be found that the BBC previously used the Doctor to write anti thatcherite propaganda in one of its previous lives. The BBC is supposed to be a non biased organisation, paid for by the people. And yet it acts like a broadcast political wing of the left, and with leftist, and labour tendencies.
I love sci fi, however, when big brother and the 'state' and its values is being driven through the form, its a form I can't enjoy.
Putting aside the politics, frankly, the BBC continues to make what should be a headline show sold worldwide out of cardboard, and art and craft left overs. Maybe some people like to see it as some artistic british sci fi, but its extremely crap looking. Its severely lacking in polish, and no doubt the excuse is that the world largest media organisation can't afford to spend real money on its flagship saturday night program. Can't be scathing enough about it. If you look at the shows coming out of the US and Canada, the doctor continues to look pathetic.
Advertising on the net now is full of exploits, bad code, invasive practice, abusive behaviour, and information gathering.
Until people who want to gain revenue accept fully and without reserve that things have to change, there is no point whining about it.
People's dislike of ads has been driven by the way its been done. And if you push things that your customers do not like, you will always garner a response.
I'm not against file sharing, and I'm averse to the insane fines being handed out. I'm also antagonised by the media industry refusal to realise that business models have to change, and monopoly and control are not maintainable.
But, and here is my large but, just as I'm averse to insane fines at court level, $400,000 in lawyer fees? No matter what has been done, Its simply not acceptable to have such levels of charges. At the end of the day, at that rate, we are all losing in this insane legal armageddon. I don't especially like media companies right now, but I don't want them destroyed utterly in this any more than I want an end user to be. The only ones rubbing hands with glee in this would be some lawyers. Worse than this, we now have people able to set (its always been the way, but we are heading in insane directions) legal precident.
At the end of the day, even if we all think this is great, its enough to utterly sink companies, and we all work in companies, and we all need jobs and a life. We don't need this insane legal armageddon and its brutality now is reaching such stupid levels. I'd like to see just how the hell they reached 400,000 in fees.
yep, the F-16 and later have used fly by wire (basically the same as your desktop flight sim joystick) for controls, rather then the hydraulics used in something like the F-4.
btw, the claim about anything after WW2 being unstable by design is not really true. Even the F-16 was supposedly designed for being stable rather then unstable. Its the most recent generation (rafael, eurofighter, gripen, F-22, possibly mig-29 and su-27) that have that feature. And those make use of fly by wire for stability if ever the pilot lets go of the stick (early accidents related to gripen was related to control computers and pilot getting into something of a race condition when trying to recover from stall like conditions, iirc).
From what i have read, the F-16, for example, is so stable that if the nose is pointing towards the horizon, and the pilot where to eject, the plane would continue on until it ran out of fuel.
You fundamentally misunderstand this.
The plane is made unstable by design. This is basically to inbuild a level of 'agility', I guess you can compare this to a car that gets a very short wheelbase or similar things that can be done to alter physics. The aircraft is then made stable by the flight control systems. Computers that continually make adjustments to keep the aircraft stable - something that can't be done by hand. The fact that a pilot ejects out is meaningless. So long as the flight conputer is working/active, the aircraft would fly on until it runs out of fuel, or until it veers out of control naturally
The fly by wire is an added area that is simply made to improve the pilot to system interface. You have no choice on this, as the computer has to have priority over control.
In answer to your first comment, yes, any user could download malware. Fine, you got your dig in. However, the download will be restricted to the user area, its going to have limited ability to change system files, and its going to struggle to take out, remove, damage AV programs. Further, its going to be more easily fixed, removed by a toolset, and its going to be very much more limited in scope.
Hence, your comment in no way justifies running as admin.
The second part, that of user error, or stupidity can't be helped, and social engineering will always make a serious effort to effect that aspect.
Lets be clear. I am going to take a liberty here and presume you are thinking worms. Open ports, and your chatter.
You got off base, most malware his windows users because of some poor user choices, and some poor system defaults. Not generally by an open port (although I don't dispute a threat vector on open ports of any system). I don't doubt that we will see more worms at some stage, but its not what this was about..
Now, seeing as you chose to raise it, computer systems in use, in the way they were designed, include open ports, and if you take this in a general sense, its not the computer or the OS that may be at fault, but rather an application, daemon or similar (which might or might not be from the OS vendor involved). The raw truth if you accept this premise comes down to a basic issue of wether good security exists on such an app, and wether its updated and patched by the vendor, how quickly its patched, and wether the user updates any released patches.
Today, the platform is less relevant - because its not wether its windows or linux, its wether an exploit exists on your port/app/deamon, and have you patched this up.
And in terms of shutting all the ports and blocking them, yes, thats all fine and good until you need to do some work, or use a computer for what it was designed for.
I'm probably being bold here, but what we need less of, is the premise that we should all run round and close everything off, but rather than the apps, and daemons and systems should be rather more well designed and secure to begin with. In this regard, we are still at the infant level of design and build and ideas like C# and other efforts are paving stones on a very long road we will have to travel.
"I use Linux. Its true that there are some viruses for Linux, its just that I haven't ever had one."
Do you understand the difference between a Virus, and Spyware, Malware, Worms, and Root Kits? This idea you have is a mirage. Linux boxes have multiple serious security flaws, as all our systems do today, The idea peddled by some is that one side is immune, while the other is an open door way. I'd really rather people talked sensibly with a realisation that our current systems and how they are built remains fundamentally flawed.
"When I was in college, the monkey virus (long ago) was the baddie. When I was unfortunate enough to manage windows systems, code red, nimda, I love you and a few others were all the rage. I got real disappointed when they started listing viruses in the ten thousands, then fifty thousands."
Windows has fundamental flaws, and since win95, its architechture and design had some serious problems. In XP, users by default are created as Admins, and the bulk of the Windows world, developers, suppliers and ISVs continued with a lot of flawed security. This 'ease' of use operation, leaves security mired in a serious hole. And its one that Anti Virus companies and Anti Spyware and Malware companies and organisations are still chasing down today, as well as Microsoft. However, for a very very long time now, Microsoft, and others have stated quite clearly one of the steps that should be taken, and often, even today, is still not taken, and that is _do_not_run_as _admin.
The arrogance of your point is noted. However, its badly placed. Linux systems that are actually placed in the real world, live, facing data ports. One of the large advantages this does exist, is the majority of users are created as users, not as the admin account. This alone is a primary basis for its better record. The point however, is that its not immune, and people should be very careful in assuming that it is.
"Its possible, but not probable to kill your system with these viruses. Perhaps it is good fortune, but I've never been infected (under linux). I'm not trying to troll, its just that the virus writers don't ever get tired trying to be destructive (mind you, kids come and kids go), and the anti-virus folk always seem to have some kind of real specific remedy, which keeps people buying. Its a bit like homeland security. In order to have a budget, there has to be a threat level. In order to sell anti-virus software, there have to be viruses. Shutting an airport for 6 hours because a man kissed his wife sounds like an over reaction. Its stupid. Its non-sensical. Its someone sounding the klaxon too loud so that the danger-danger-danger mentality and the budget both are accepted. No terror, no budget (or sales). Its a game. I refuse to play. If there are viruses on some system, I use the other. Terrorists always target planes, I use car, or bus or something else. The virus researchers never seem to offer anything all encompassing. Its always piecemeal, just like the homeland security rules. The terrorists always always target at the last hour, so we worry about just the last hour (very piecemeal). A stupid approach if you are trying to solve a problem like terror or security, but a real boon if you are trying to sell software or get a budget passed. Milk it baby! Milk it hard. But please, count me out. It just looks like a pile of crap to me (both). Thanks."
When I last spent time with a team from Mcafee, they spoke about how their labs a few years ago, were getting 60,000 unique samples of virii and malware code, and how only a couple of years later they were being bombarded with 255,000 a month. No security co
These bastards, and that slimy scumbag Mandelson have spend the past 13 years utterly ruining everything, every institution, way of life, habitat, hobby, social fabric and this?
Basically, people are slowly concluding a few things, some are less than good, but for every action, there is a reaction, clearly 13 years too late. Vote anyone but these bastards, and tell them why at every moment they bang on your door or come to your doorstep. Vote BNP, UKIP, Con, Lib - ANYONE but these slimy dark forces shits.
Their brand of nanny state 1984 insanity, and mass persecution of population, drivers, and all the rest, and their enforced political correctness and multiculturalism, and devolution, and EU fanatisism, and the rest is DEAD. OVER. FINISHED.
Its the worst government the UK has had in any modern times, and people cannot wait to be rid of them.
I don't give it to others, certainly not commercially. What I then do with it, is none of your damn business, and in actual fact, I'll do whatever the hell I please with it after I've bought it. I'll play and store it across all my own devices, I'll play it where ever the hell I want, in my car, in different rooms, whatever.
And if you don't get a clue, and real soon, I'll actually cut you out altogether. No revenue, no money, no stream. I'd rather give up film and music totally than see your idiocy gain any further traction.
The music and film industry deserve an award for multiple cases of Poorest use of the internet Stupidest abuse of their own customers Mass abuse of the market, ripping off artists and customers alike.
If you guys were wise, You'd have beaten Itunes to the ball and had a monthly fee from members with an all you can eat menu. You're so dumb that Apple had to show you how to do something. And you're supposed to be the creatives.
The music industry is jammed in the 1960's monopoly model and can't see the wood for the trees.
The smart Linux people will carefully assess the entire picture. And I mean the whole thing. When in the real world, people return the product, you don't squeal about MS, Windows, or anything else. What you do is really assess and work the problem. If they are being returned - why, and beyond why, what could be rectified, and what needs work.
Unix advocacy is utterly pointless and meaningless in the consumer space. Its not going to cut ice with users, and people. After it shipped, people had to spend time making things work, new distributions have had to be built to cover short comings, and problems, and at the final point, companies that bought into what they were told 'Linux' is ready - have found the real world picture to be a rock and a hard place.
Linux companies I presume made the OEM deals with these companies, if people want to vent, vent at the product shipped. It_is_not the users job to fix your broken, none working OS.
So, after having high returns, vendors turned away from you. Learn a lesson. In the meantime, the reality of this is a harsh one. Within the limited confines of 'netbooks', a controlled, limited hardware base, and small requirements in terms of apps and OS, Linux came up short. Its an area where Linux should have hit for home runs everywhere. Absorb the lesson, learn from it, take some humble pie, quite blaming MS, The users, The vendors. This is an area where you should be kicking the absolute crap out of Microsoft, AND you should have been bending over backwards with vendors to ship higher spec machines, given MS's attempt to limit and lock it down.
Wether lessons are learned or not will reflect wether any vendors come back. Bringing them back will take double the work now.
In most companies, insubordination is a fireable offense. If your manager tells you to implement a feature, you either do it, or provide a good reason not to. Either way, at the end of the day, it's your manager's call.
If you're writing code for the first time, sure, get it right. If you've already got code, and it works, it's going to be a really hard sell to change it just because Microsoft published a memo.
He's trolling? Are you kidding? A good reason not to would be that its not along correct lines for the tool, it would end up having to be run as an admin, and is by connection, a security threat to the customer.
If you don't think this is a "good reason not to", that's your lookout.
And its not a memo. Don't let your lame anti MS rhetoric fool you into thinking that just cos its MS, its ok for you or anyone else to screw security, or good practice.
You've gone public and stated that you purport that running as an admin is no worse than running as a user.
And you're offended that someone called you an idiot, and a fucking idiot, because you were dumb enough to actually claim your theory as a good one.
Poor you. Maybe you should keep your idiocy and stupidity out of the public domain.
I could not care less about you. What is bad, is that some fools not knowing any better might choose to follow your dumbfuckness and pay the price for your cretinous stupidity.
What you mean is that when you ran the installer, you gave it rights to do so, and you did not bother to see if there was an option of where to store the files.
Nvidia did not create this, you ran a process and the process did this. Maybe you should think differently, you were kind enough to let Nvidia make that directory.
Lastly, to confirm that you are not a windows programmer, certainly not a good one, guess where the driver actually lives. Hint: Its not in c:\nvidia
It's my machine. Nobody uses it but me. Why the hell would I ever run it in crippled mode? Freedom requires responsibility: fine. I'll take responsibility for what I install. I don't install dodgy software or software with viruses.
Quit treating the users like five-year-olds and let them do what they want with their own damn machines.
If you have XP, you lose nothing by running as a limited user. Yes, that is right, nothing. And the right click 'run as' option exists for a fucking reason.
Absolutely right. And all that security is protecting the wrong thing: the operating system, which is easy to reinstall anyway. On my computers, the only thing that has value is my data: my source code, my letters, my pr0n, my email. By running as one user, one malicious application can still wipe everything out. Why doesn't the operating system treat each application as unsafe and run it in a sandbox by default unless I specifically mark it as trusted?
"Correct paradigm" indeed - but the UNIX paradigm is just as badly broken as the Windows one...
Ahhh, another brilliant idiot. If you have a backup, you do have backuyps of 'data' - right? If a user piece of malware gets in, and you have to recover, you have a better chance of recovery.
Maybe running as a normal user is the "correct" way of doing it (gotta love the arrogance there...) but I personally will never run that way.
I have heard all the arguments, from the fact that its easy to type rm -rf/, to the fact that viruses auto install with an IE misclick. The problem with the "correct" way of doing things is that it is very annoying to be typing in passwords all the time! Just try and use a apple mac computer. It asks you to authenticate the keychain consistently. Especially, when as a technician, you are making lots of changes to the OS. I would hate for windows to go this direction. Personally, I believe that it desensitizes people into typing their password into any box that asks.
I will submit that in all the years I have been logging in as root on linux, and administrator on windows, I have NEVER mis typed a file system altering command, deleted my hard drive, or had any other negative experiences running as super users. I also turn off the delete confirmation on my recycle bin. Does this make me a dangerous user? I doubt it.
I just really resent the arrogance of the summary basically stating that super user logins are a design faux pas and should be eliminated anywhere and everywhere. Does my argument have merit? does no one else constantly run as root/admin?
/end rant
You're not an admin, you only think you are. You are unfit to be an admin, and in fact, you are an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
MorphOS is in relative terms 'Amiga' alike and can run older Amiga programs with a JIT emulator at great speed in comparison to older Amiga based systems.
So, for anyone who had an interest, what this offers is basically a faster Amiga, modernised quite a bit, and with more resources.
In this, there is a large library of software and so on that is around from the time Amiga's were in wider use, and for anyone who has an old Amiga thats on deaths door, this offers one modern way forward.
You can do similar things with WinUAE or UAE, however, emulation is all well and good, but having real hardware and modernised software is always one good avenue.
Lastly, its a single user, exec alike OS, so its fast in terms of look and feel, on a level that more modern OSs cannot match. Off course, its actually raw processing power is only whatever the cpu's offer, so it tends to only be look and feel in nature.
I've worked inside on things since windows 3.1
I've worked with security products over the same period.
I've worked with Users, and in terms of compliance, and in terms of business.
I've worked with and for and around vendors.
Today, we are multi generations of the base consumer OS later.
The real world security model is so broken as to be an actual joke.
The security models in use are also now so broken as to be an actual joke.
Application and vendor companies are still shipping products today, multi generations later in this consumer area that require the logged in user to run with administration rights when using the program.
Security products have been failing for several years. And there is no chance whatsoever that security products can mitigate and bulwark off computers against the fact that software is fundamentally flawed, but worse yet, globally end users are running the majority of applications, tools, utilties and processes with administrator rights.
Even with the onset of Vista and with Windows 7, the voluntary compliance in view of UAC is simply ignored. Most home users switch off and blithly click click click, and the smarter ones would be utterly ignored when reporting to vendors to have culpative changes made to end software. With no punitive action being faced there is very little to persuade vendors and software producers to actually secure and improve their programs, APIs, frameworks, and Features.
Security vendors rarely step forward to make demands in light of admin rights, - and their whole industry is based on the equivilent in Pharma terms - dragons penises and the maagical effects of it as a healing agent towards keeping clients secure.
Most security products are at best woefully inadaquate, and in many cases have no idea malware and foreign code is running wild on systems they are 'protecting'. Years ago, they should have been driving the use of admin rights on the desktop away. But again, with no punative penalty for failures, they can continue selling utterly flawed models and generations of products that are patently unable to do what they are supposedly designed to do.
I don't entirely blame them, but the failure to drive the admin rights issue is the fundamental flaw in this, along with faulty vendor products, and faulty third party software products.
Here are AdmV0rl0ns laws.
1. The model of software development has to change. And change fundamentally. For several decades - software has been built along very odd engineering lines. Companies are allowed almost a free hand in terms of punitive licensing, and in terms of licensing, and gain enormous protection from the state, and freedom of the state in terms of copyright and other protection.
In most cases, every single line of code written has been accompanied with a substantive 'If the world burns down because of this software, or because of anything this software does, then we cannot be held accountable, good luck.'.
This cannot continue. In the real world, no such engineering is acceptable. Bridges are not shoddy affairs put up and then handed over to the paying taxpayer, customer or business with an cast iron guarantee that the bridge builder is excempt from 'everything'.
Consumers don't buy a car, and then are forced by laws and licenses to sign over all their rights and if the wheels fly off the car, the maker gets exeption from all responsibility.
In terms of OS development, The vendor has to be brought to account, and it has to develop and security test APIs and function to a level where the wheels do not fly off. And where security becomes a functional demand. And if this change cannot be gained by voluntary method, then the law needs changing so punitive damages are available to those who suffer failures from software.
It has to be remembered, many of these companies make millions, perhaps even billions, and yet avoid any examination of their products actual safety and engineering. Windows XP and its subsequent service packs w
When will people get it?
Sony rootkitted people's PCs and did so insecurly to boot.
They sold the original PS3 with a list of specifications and base functions, and removal of these where they were sold with them is clearly fundamentally a breach.
It would be very interesting to delve and see how Sony transported these across the globe and what original tax bases and statements were made. Computers and consoles get varying differences in tariffs and import duties.
But at the end of the day, Its Sony's responsibility to protect the game development and copy protection area. That is in their interest, however, removing paid for accepted features is simply not acceptable.
What next? Blu ray? Old games? This is partially a fault with creeping 'rentalisation' where its being in vogue that the console and everything connected to it does not belong to you. But even if this is the case, you bought the big old PS3 at a price premium, and one of its features the OS option.
At the end of the day, a customer paid a lot of money for something, and parts are being made non functional - quite deliberatly.
Sony repeatedly crap on customers, and have a very grim outlook towards them. Wether its getting your sony equipment repaired, rootkits being installed on your equipment without permission, or functions being removed from you equipment - Sony is a compny unfit for your custom and its time you enforced it.
You'll find many understood right and wrong.
The invasion of Poland resulted in Great Britain and the Dominions, and France declaring war on Germany. I rather trust their view more than yours.
As for the rest of your garbage I don't need to say much, others have already said enough to cover it previously.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill
"If I were asked the difference between Socialism and Communism, I could only reply that the Socialist tries to lead us to disaster by foolish words and the Communist drives us there by violent deeds."
"Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State."
"Government of the duds, by the duds, and for the duds."
"No socialist system can be established without a political police."
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
"It is not alone that property, in all its forms, is struck at, but that liberty, in all its forms, is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of socialism."
"'All men are created equal' says the American Declaration of Independence. 'All men shall be kept equal' say the Socialists."
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory animal to be shot, others look on it as a cow to be milked but a few see it as a sturdy horse pulling a wagon."
"If you destroy a free market, you create a black market."
"The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of misery."
"Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual."
"Is it better to have equality at the price of poverty or well-being at the price of inequality?"
"The flame of Christian ethics is still our best guide...only on this basis can we reconcile the rights of the individual with the demands of society."
On leftists:
"They are the most disagreeable of people...Their insincerity? Can you not feel a sense of disgust at the arrogant presumption of superiority of these people? Superiority of intellect! Then, when it comes to practice, down they fall with a wallop not only to the level of ordinary human beings but to a level which is even far below the average."
"These very high intellectual persons who wake up every morning...see what they can find to demolish, to undermine, or cast away."
"Let them quit these gospels of envy, hate, and malice. Let them abandon the utter fallacy, the grotesque, erroneous, fatal blunder of believing that by limiting the enterprise of man, by riveting the shackles of a false equality...they will increase the well-being of the world."
On Communism:
"Bolshevism is not a policy; it is a disease."
"The day will come when it will be recognized without doubt throughout the civilized world that the strangling of Bolshevism at birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race."
What an interesting mismatch of fact, propaganda, and ignorance.
Where to start?
* Pre soviet Russia, was very backwards. Look at their performance in WW I where they showed up with ancient weaponry.
* It was a super power, no other way to describe a country that controlled half of the world, put the first man & satellite in space and was capable of destroying the world umpteen times over.
* Yes, it was a super power *AFTER* WW I, not before or during.
* And finally, being a super power doesn't mean you are a nice guy. If that's a requirement to super power, then yes it was not a super power.
I neither endorse nor condone any violent actions the Soviet Union performed during its history, but your account was just too messed up to leave un commented upon.
Most sides in WW1 turned up with ancient weaponary. The advancements came during the war, not really before it. Or maybe you've never read about the appalling losses and complete stalemates of WW1.
As for the rest of your inept garbage, I have little care for socialists or and especially communists, or their spewing of idiocy. The death of the communist Soviet was and remains one of the great days in human history.
It has not. Simply by the fact that the USSR was able to sustain the population after the second world war. FYI the soviet losses in the WW2 were about 20 millions. The total population of the whole USSR was about 100 millions in 1920ies. If there really were tens of millions butchered then by 1945 the USSR would have a population of 50 millions or less. Frankly, it was not the case.
And yes, russian empire was as backwards as it gets.
The Russian populace at 1920 was around 137,727,000 , so you can quit lying.
On 26 January 1934 Joseph Stalin reported to the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party as one of the main achievements "Growth of population from 160.5 millions in the end of 1930 to the 168 millions in the end of 1933". On 1 December 1935 Joseph Stalin made a speech, on the Meeting of Kolkhozniks with the Soviet and Party leaders:
“ Everybody says that the material situation of workers has dramatically improved, that life has become better and more fun. It is of course true. But this has led the population to breed much faster than in the old days. The birth rate is higher, the death rate is lower and the pure population growth is far stronger. It is of course good and we welcome it. [Jolly murmurs in the auditorium.] Now every year we have a population growth of three million souls. It means that every year we grow as much as the whole of Finland. [Everybody laughs.] ”
Combining his reports, one could have expected to have a population of about 180 million in 1937.
Official statistics based on the registered birth and death rates implied that the 1937 census should show a population of 170-172 million. On 21 September 1935 Sovnarkom adopted a decision On the organization of registration of natural population changes most probably authored by Stalin
Stalin's population growth, meant that he enforced a change in the agrarian system - one that was implemented by force and was focused on the Kulaks and 'mechanised farming'
According to data from Soviet archives, which were published in 1990, 1,803,392 people were sent to labour colonies and camps in 1930 and 1931. Books say that 1,317,022 reached the destination. The remaining 486,370 may have died or escaped.
In the region of 24 million people, civilian and military were lost in WW2, but you can add in plenty there was killed by their own side, in the red human sausage machine.
Afterwards, millions were enslaved, and sent or killed by the regime, and stalin's words ever echo in the imphamy of history;
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic".
The butchering of people by the 10's of millions might be an expression too far, but millions fits, and thats before any expression about the misery caused to the rest of the populations involved in soviet misery
It lasted 50 years, and turned a backwards agrarian society into a world superpower and put the first man in space.
Pre Soviet Russia was not a backwards agrarian society, any more than other states were.
It was never a world super power, but it was a nuclear one, driven by fear after being driven by hate.
The soviets were so powerful, they signed a pact with Nazi Germany, and offered many congratulations to Hitler, each time he domino'd a single state, including france. And during this time it decided to get a bloody nose picking on Finland.
Afterwards, when the panzers rolled across these so called previous agrarian lands, the soviets screamed for a second front from people it had cast into the fires of history to be crushed while it stood by and watched (and in the case of Poland, decided to go join the fun.)
Despite all is supposed power, it spread a failed political doctrine far and wide, caused untold damage to the planet, and now 1 in 5 people have an AK47, and a higher percentage have failed and weak governments. It never got true amphibious power, and spent the whole cold war in agressive posture, yet never able to make a move, failing in the end because of its own weight, and inability to go on.
And this summary does not count the millions killed and enslaved and left in misery by this comparitive short period in human history.
Oh don't worry, You won't quit publishing garbage, because its what good socialist and communists do.
I lost interest when it became clear that the BBC was using the good doctor to push homosexual tendencies and politics onto children.
Thats after its be found that the BBC previously used the Doctor to write anti thatcherite propaganda in one of its previous lives. The BBC is supposed to be a non biased organisation, paid for by the people. And yet it acts like a broadcast political wing of the left, and with leftist, and labour tendencies.
I love sci fi, however, when big brother and the 'state' and its values is being driven through the form, its a form I can't enjoy.
Putting aside the politics, frankly, the BBC continues to make what should be a headline show sold worldwide out of cardboard, and art and craft left overs. Maybe some people like to see it as some artistic british sci fi, but its extremely crap looking. Its severely lacking in polish, and no doubt the excuse is that the world largest media organisation can't afford to spend real money on its flagship saturday night program. Can't be scathing enough about it. If you look at the shows coming out of the US and Canada, the doctor continues to look pathetic.
The problem is not so much about Ads.
Advertising on the net now is full of exploits, bad code, invasive practice, abusive behaviour, and information gathering.
Until people who want to gain revenue accept fully and without reserve that things have to change, there is no point whining about it.
People's dislike of ads has been driven by the way its been done. And if you push things that your customers do not like, you will always garner a response.
I'm not against file sharing, and I'm averse to the insane fines being handed out. I'm also antagonised by the media industry refusal to realise that business models have to change, and monopoly and control are not maintainable.
But, and here is my large but, just as I'm averse to insane fines at court level, $400,000 in lawyer fees? No matter what has been done, Its simply not acceptable to have such levels of charges. At the end of the day, at that rate, we are all losing in this insane legal armageddon. I don't especially like media companies right now, but I don't want them destroyed utterly in this any more than I want an end user to be. The only ones rubbing hands with glee in this would be some lawyers. Worse than this, we now have people able to set (its always been the way, but we are heading in insane directions) legal precident.
At the end of the day, even if we all think this is great, its enough to utterly sink companies, and we all work in companies, and we all need jobs and a life. We don't need this insane legal armageddon and its brutality now is reaching such stupid levels. I'd like to see just how the hell they reached 400,000 in fees.
yep, the F-16 and later have used fly by wire (basically the same as your desktop flight sim joystick) for controls, rather then the hydraulics used in something like the F-4.
btw, the claim about anything after WW2 being unstable by design is not really true. Even the F-16 was supposedly designed for being stable rather then unstable. Its the most recent generation (rafael, eurofighter, gripen, F-22, possibly mig-29 and su-27) that have that feature. And those make use of fly by wire for stability if ever the pilot lets go of the stick (early accidents related to gripen was related to control computers and pilot getting into something of a race condition when trying to recover from stall like conditions, iirc).
From what i have read, the F-16, for example, is so stable that if the nose is pointing towards the horizon, and the pilot where to eject, the plane would continue on until it ran out of fuel.
You fundamentally misunderstand this.
The plane is made unstable by design. This is basically to inbuild a level of 'agility', I guess you can compare this to a car that gets a very short wheelbase or similar things that can be done to alter physics. The aircraft is then made stable by the flight control systems. Computers that continually make adjustments to keep the aircraft stable - something that can't be done by hand. The fact that a pilot ejects out is meaningless. So long as the flight conputer is working/active, the aircraft would fly on until it runs out of fuel, or until it veers out of control naturally
The fly by wire is an added area that is simply made to improve the pilot to system interface. You have no choice on this, as the computer has to have priority over control.
In answer to your first comment, yes, any user could download malware. Fine, you got your dig in. However, the download will be restricted to the user area, its going to have limited ability to change system files, and its going to struggle to take out, remove, damage AV programs. Further, its going to be more easily fixed, removed by a toolset, and its going to be very much more limited in scope.
Hence, your comment in no way justifies running as admin.
The second part, that of user error, or stupidity can't be helped, and social engineering will always make a serious effort to effect that aspect.
Lets be clear. I am going to take a liberty here and presume you are thinking worms. Open ports, and your chatter.
You got off base, most malware his windows users because of some poor user choices, and some poor system defaults. Not generally by an open port (although I don't dispute a threat vector on open ports of any system). I don't doubt that we will see more worms at some stage, but its not what this was about..
Now, seeing as you chose to raise it, computer systems in use, in the way they were designed, include open ports, and if you take this in a general sense, its not the computer or the OS that may be at fault, but rather an application, daemon or similar (which might or might not be from the OS vendor involved). The raw truth if you accept this premise comes down to a basic issue of wether good security exists on such an app, and wether its updated and patched by the vendor, how quickly its patched, and wether the user updates any released patches.
Today, the platform is less relevant - because its not wether its windows or linux, its wether an exploit exists on your port/app/deamon, and have you patched this up.
And in terms of shutting all the ports and blocking them, yes, thats all fine and good until you need to do some work, or use a computer for what it was designed for.
I'm probably being bold here, but what we need less of, is the premise that we should all run round and close everything off, but rather than the apps, and daemons and systems should be rather more well designed and secure to begin with. In this regard, we are still at the infant level of design and build and ideas like C# and other efforts are paving stones on a very long road we will have to travel.
I'm going to reply to your comments in "".
"I use Linux. Its true that there are some viruses for Linux, its just that I haven't ever had one."
Do you understand the difference between a Virus, and Spyware, Malware, Worms, and Root Kits? This idea you have is a mirage. Linux boxes have multiple serious security flaws, as all our systems do today, The idea peddled by some is that one side is immune, while the other is an open door way. I'd really rather people talked sensibly with a realisation that our current systems and how they are built remains fundamentally flawed.
"When I was in college, the monkey virus (long ago) was the baddie. When I was unfortunate enough to manage windows systems, code red, nimda, I love you and a few others were all the rage. I got real disappointed when they started listing viruses in the ten thousands, then fifty thousands."
Windows has fundamental flaws, and since win95, its architechture and design had some serious problems. In XP, users by default are created as Admins, and the bulk of the Windows world, developers, suppliers and ISVs continued with a lot of flawed security. This 'ease' of use operation, leaves security mired in a serious hole. And its one that Anti Virus companies and Anti Spyware and Malware companies and organisations are still chasing down today, as well as Microsoft. However, for a very very long time now, Microsoft, and others have stated quite clearly one of the steps that should be taken, and often, even today, is still not taken, and that is _do_not_run_as _admin.
"For Linux, its been in the teens. Mostly root exploits, proof-of-concept stuff, and virii that you have to allow in and set to execute yourself (change permissions, etc)."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/113636/linux_groups_servers_hacked.html
The arrogance of your point is noted. However, its badly placed. Linux systems that are actually placed in the real world, live, facing data ports. One of the large advantages this does exist, is the majority of users are created as users, not as the admin account. This alone is a primary basis for its better record. The point however, is that its not immune, and people should be very careful in assuming that it is.
"Its possible, but not probable to kill your system with these viruses. Perhaps it is good fortune, but I've never been infected (under linux). I'm not trying to troll, its just that the virus writers don't ever get tired trying to be destructive (mind you, kids come and kids go), and the anti-virus folk always seem to have some kind of real specific remedy, which keeps people buying. Its a bit like homeland security. In order to have a budget, there has to be a threat level. In order to sell anti-virus software, there have to be viruses. Shutting an airport for 6 hours because a man kissed his wife sounds like an over reaction. Its stupid. Its non-sensical. Its someone sounding the klaxon too loud so that the danger-danger-danger mentality and the budget both are accepted. No terror, no budget (or sales). Its a game. I refuse to play. If there are viruses on some system, I use the other. Terrorists always target planes, I use car, or bus or something else. The virus researchers never seem to offer anything all encompassing. Its always piecemeal, just like the homeland security rules. The terrorists always always target at the last hour, so we worry about just the last hour (very piecemeal). A stupid approach if you are trying to solve a problem like terror or security, but a real boon if you are trying to sell software or get a budget passed. Milk it baby! Milk it hard. But please, count me out. It just looks like a pile of crap to me (both). Thanks."
When I last spent time with a team from Mcafee, they spoke about how their labs a few years ago, were getting 60,000 unique samples of virii and malware code, and how only a couple of years later they were being bombarded with 255,000 a month. No security co
These bastards, and that slimy scumbag Mandelson have spend the past 13 years utterly ruining everything, every institution, way of life, habitat, hobby, social fabric and this?
Basically, people are slowly concluding a few things, some are less than good, but for every action, there is a reaction, clearly 13 years too late. Vote anyone but these bastards, and tell them why at every moment they bang on your door or come to your doorstep. Vote BNP, UKIP, Con, Lib - ANYONE but these slimy dark forces shits.
Their brand of nanny state 1984 insanity, and mass persecution of population, drivers, and all the rest, and their enforced political correctness and multiculturalism, and devolution, and EU fanatisism, and the rest is DEAD. OVER. FINISHED.
Its the worst government the UK has had in any modern times, and people cannot wait to be rid of them.
I pay you for your films or music.
I don't give it to others, certainly not commercially.
What I then do with it, is none of your damn business, and in actual fact, I'll do whatever the hell I please with it after I've bought it.
I'll play and store it across all my own devices, I'll play it where ever the hell I want, in my car, in different rooms, whatever.
And if you don't get a clue, and real soon, I'll actually cut you out altogether. No revenue, no money, no stream.
I'd rather give up film and music totally than see your idiocy gain any further traction.
The music and film industry deserve an award for multiple cases of
Poorest use of the internet
Stupidest abuse of their own customers
Mass abuse of the market, ripping off artists and customers alike.
If you guys were wise, You'd have beaten Itunes to the ball and had a monthly fee from members with an all you can eat menu.
You're so dumb that Apple had to show you how to do something. And you're supposed to be the creatives.
The music industry is jammed in the 1960's monopoly model and can't see the wood for the trees.
The smart Linux people will carefully assess the entire picture. And I mean the whole thing.
When in the real world, people return the product, you don't squeal about MS, Windows, or anything else. What you do is really assess and work the problem. If they are being returned - why, and beyond why, what could be rectified, and what needs work.
Unix advocacy is utterly pointless and meaningless in the consumer space. Its not going to cut ice with users, and people.
After it shipped, people had to spend time making things work, new distributions have had to be built to cover short comings, and problems, and at the final point, companies that bought into what they were told 'Linux' is ready - have found the real world picture to be a rock and a hard place.
Linux companies I presume made the OEM deals with these companies, if people want to vent, vent at the product shipped.
It_is_not the users job to fix your broken, none working OS.
So, after having high returns, vendors turned away from you.
Learn a lesson. In the meantime, the reality of this is a harsh one. Within the limited confines of 'netbooks', a controlled, limited hardware base, and small requirements in terms of apps and OS, Linux came up short. Its an area where Linux should have hit for home runs everywhere. Absorb the lesson, learn from it, take some humble pie, quite blaming MS, The users, The vendors. This is an area where you should be kicking the absolute crap out of Microsoft, AND you should have been bending over backwards with vendors to ship higher spec machines, given MS's attempt to limit and lock it down.
Wether lessons are learned or not will reflect wether any vendors come back. Bringing them back will take double the work now.
Your point had little to do with UAC, the bulk of it was admin/user.
But tell you what, I'll be a troll if you'll continue to be the king sized idiot.
You're trolling, aren't you.
In most companies, insubordination is a fireable offense. If your manager tells you to implement a feature, you either do it, or provide a good reason not to. Either way, at the end of the day, it's your manager's call.
If you're writing code for the first time, sure, get it right. If you've already got code, and it works, it's going to be a really hard sell to change it just because Microsoft published a memo.
He's trolling?
Are you kidding?
A good reason not to would be that its not along correct lines for the tool, it would end up having to be run as an admin, and is by connection, a security threat to the customer.
If you don't think this is a "good reason not to", that's your lookout.
And its not a memo. Don't let your lame anti MS rhetoric fool you into thinking that just cos its MS, its ok for you or anyone else to screw security, or good practice.
You've gone public and stated that you purport that running as an admin is no worse than running as a user.
And you're offended that someone called you an idiot, and a fucking idiot, because you were dumb enough to actually claim your theory as a good one.
Poor you. Maybe you should keep your idiocy and stupidity out of the public domain.
I could not care less about you. What is bad, is that some fools not knowing any better might choose to follow your dumbfuckness and pay the price for your cretinous stupidity.
None of your supposed methods are the top methods.
Thanks for confirming how big an idiot you are though.
What you mean is that when you ran the installer, you gave it rights to do so, and you did not bother to see if there was an option of where to store the files.
Nvidia did not create this, you ran a process and the process did this. Maybe you should think differently, you were kind enough to let Nvidia make that directory.
Lastly, to confirm that you are not a windows programmer, certainly not a good one, guess where the driver actually lives.
Hint: Its not in c:\nvidia
So, to confirm, you're an idiot.
It's my machine. Nobody uses it but me. Why the hell would I ever run it in crippled mode? Freedom requires responsibility: fine. I'll take responsibility for what I install. I don't install dodgy software or software with viruses.
Quit treating the users like five-year-olds and let them do what they want with their own damn machines.
If you have XP, you lose nothing by running as a limited user. Yes, that is right, nothing. And the right click 'run as' option exists for a fucking reason.
Absolutely right. And all that security is protecting the wrong thing: the operating system, which is easy to reinstall anyway. On my computers, the only thing that has value is my data: my source code, my letters, my pr0n, my email. By running as one user, one malicious application can still wipe everything out. Why doesn't the operating system treat each application as unsafe and run it in a sandbox by default unless I specifically mark it as trusted?
"Correct paradigm" indeed - but the UNIX paradigm is just as badly broken as the Windows one...
Ahhh, another brilliant idiot.
If you have a backup, you do have backuyps of 'data' - right? If a user piece of malware gets in, and you have to recover, you have a better chance of recovery.
And recovery to a solid clean system is simple.
Maybe running as a normal user is the "correct" way of doing it (gotta love the arrogance there...) but I personally will never run that way.
I have heard all the arguments, from the fact that its easy to type rm -rf /, to the fact that viruses auto install with an IE misclick. The problem with the "correct" way of doing things is that it is very annoying to be typing in passwords all the time! Just try and use a apple mac computer. It asks you to authenticate the keychain consistently. Especially, when as a technician, you are making lots of changes to the OS. I would hate for windows to go this direction. Personally, I believe that it desensitizes people into typing their password into any box that asks.
I will submit that in all the years I have been logging in as root on linux, and administrator on windows, I have NEVER mis typed a file system altering command, deleted my hard drive, or had any other negative experiences running as super users. I also turn off the delete confirmation on my recycle bin. Does this make me a dangerous user? I doubt it.
I just really resent the arrogance of the summary basically stating that super user logins are a design faux pas and should be eliminated anywhere and everywhere. Does my argument have merit? does no one else constantly run as root/admin?
You're not an admin, you only think you are. You are unfit to be an admin, and in fact, you are an idiot.