Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Certainly. That would be the "library" I was talking about.

> 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.

I think a lot of the broken security (w.r.t. the UAC) in Win7 is due to the 
user base demanding something be done about it, and Microsoft doing the 
wrong thing instead of fixing their applications the right way.

> 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.

If you mean the UAC "fixes" in Win7, I'm in complete agreement. I think MS 
has a mess of code that doesn't run quite right with the UAC, just like 
everyone else (in the sense that it took years to get people to write 
software that runs unprivileged), and they're unwilling to spend the time to 
fix that code, so they make half-ass patches that break the security.

I think we're actually agreeing, and I'm just commenting "your code could 
probably be better than MS's if you took the time."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message