|
|
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:07:47 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In general, I think the idea of UAC as the "fix" is the problem.
>
> I dunno. From what I know of it, it seems like a reasonable fix. I see
> Mac fans saying they never have to type in their password, and Windows
> users saying they have to answer UAC prompts several dozen times a day,
> and I'm thinking "WTF?" What in the world are Windows users doing that
> make them have to answer UAC prompts dozens of times a day, when I do it
> maybe once a week when making offsite backups?
Well, see, I never get them. ;-) Come to think, I didn't get them while
updating the Vista OS on this box, but that's because I turned them off.
> Actually, I was thinking that UAC might not be quite enough. Now every
> program that needs to upgrade itself (like firefox, for example, or a
> virus scanner, or whatever) needs a privileged service running just so
> it can write over files without prompting for a password. I can't think
> how you'd fix that, except perhaps letting a program get overwritten by
> a new version that is signed by the same public key.
That's kinda like the ActiveX control that gets installed in FF to allow
software to be installed without the prompts. Though it sounds like
there's more to it than that.
> On the other hand, UNIX and OSX seem to get along OK without it. Linux
> needs the password to do updates, unless it's using a background process
> of course, so that's kind of the same except that almost all your
> updates come from the same place. I don't know what OSX does in this
> regard.
There's a reason I also don't do automatic updates on Linux as well. I
like to know what's being done to my system.
>> We do have a habit of that, don't we? ;-)
>
> Seems like it. It seems I sometimes make comments that are only
> tangentially related to the stuff I'm quoting, which confuses people
> sometimes.
I think we both do that, and that we both do it causes the confusion and
violent agreements. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|