On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:03:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:12:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Microsoft wrote Explorer.  Microsoft wrote UAC. I leave the rest of
>>>> my comment as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
>>> Sure. I was just pointing out that *you* could do better in *your*
>>> programs.
>> 
>> Just because others don't do a good job is no excuse for MS doing a
>> poor job.
> 
> 
> I quote myself: "Explorer is dumb here."
> 
> In what way is that saying MS didn't do a poor job?

It isn't.  But to say that the implementation of UAC is a good way to 
solve the problem is inaccurate; the team working on UAC and the team 
working on Explorer need to come to terms with the best way for the user.

I'm not saying that this will be *easy* to do - heck, I work in a 
software company that has problems like this itself - for example, 
SLES10SP2 breaks Open Enterprise Server (which runs on SLES10SP1).  It's 
a point of frustration for me when I see groups inside a company not 
talking to each other, and the user base accepting that "well, this is 
the way it is" instead of demanding something be done about it.

IOW, explorer being dumb here isn't the issue.  It's that UAC "fixes" it 
by also being dumb that is.  Two dumbs don't make a smart.

Jim

Post a reply to this message