On 5 Mar 2009 16:15:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:15:59 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>>> 1.  Click on "Exit"
>>> 2.  "Are you sure?"
>>> 3.  Yes
>>> 4.  "You're going to be exiting.  Are you sure that you really want to
>>> do this?"
>>> 5.  Yes
>>> 6.  "We're going to ask you one more time.  Really sure you want to do
>>> this?"
>>> 7.  YES!
>>> 8.  "Sorry, your request can't be processed at this time."
>> 
>> I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that.
>
>LOL

Daisy Daisy, Give me your answer do! 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:25:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:


>>LOL
> 
> Daisy Daisy, Give me your answer do!

Are you saying you're half crazy? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:23:21 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Chris Cason wrote:
>> And here's a perfect example: try to create a new folder in "Program
>> Files" using windows explorer. You will get a UAC prompt to create the
>> folder. Fair enough. But the folder is called "New Folder" ... and very
>> few people will leave it named that. Yet renaming it immediately
>> invokes another UAC prompt.
> 
> Explorer is dumb here. That's not the UAC's fault.

Microsoft wrote Explorer.  Microsoft wrote UAC.

I leave the rest of my comment as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
   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

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.  Like it or not, they are the market leader, they should be setting 
a good example.  (I learn said "setting an example", but they do that 
already - they set a poor example)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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?

-- 
   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

On 6 Mar 2009 16:40:48 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:25:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>>>LOL
>> 
>> Daisy Daisy, Give me your answer do!
>
>Are you saying you're half crazy? ;-)
>

If only ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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

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

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:54:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

I see, yes.

>> 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.

Agreed. :-)

>> 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.

In general, I think the idea of UAC as the "fix" is the problem.  
Granted, it's really a first attempt at fixing the problem, but still - 
MS is supposed to be hiring some of the smartest people out there.  I 
know some of them (not who work on the core OS, but on other parts of 
their product offerings) certainly are.

> 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."

We do have a habit of that, don't we? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message