...is that it tells me it's going to ask my permission for something 
before it asks my permission.

A smart program would figure out that if I say "yes" to the first, I'm 
probably going to say "yes" to the second as well.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:41:08 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> A smart program would figure out that if I say "yes" to the first, I'm
> probably going to say "yes" to the second as well.

In the words of Adam Savage, "well, THERE'S your problem!"

Jm

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> ...is that it tells me it's going to ask my permission for something 
> before it asks my permission.

But this is part of the security bit. If it doesn't tell you it's going to 
ask permission first, then you can't tell someone "only say it's OK if it 
already asked you and you agree with what it's asking."

Like, I taught my computer-naive relatives to not say "yes" unless they had 
just clicked on an icon with a shield on it. Otherwise, J Random Virus will 
come up and ask for permission, and you won't know what to answer. The only 
time the Windows stuff asks for permission twice is when it doesn't know 
that (for example) it's unable to delete the file you asked it to delete 
before it tries to delete it.

It's not perfect, but it's darn close. And apparently the API for it is much 
more capable than most people (including MS) take advantage of. It doesn't 
*have* to prompt every time - it just doesn't bother to cache the results.

-- 
   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 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:51:47 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Chambers wrote:
>> ...is that it tells me it's going to ask my permission for something
>> before it asks my permission.
> 
> But this is part of the security bit. If it doesn't tell you it's going
> to ask permission first, then you can't tell someone "only say it's OK
> if it already asked you and you agree with what it's asking."

Perhaps, but I do agree with Chambers on this one - how many times have 
we seen:

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."

Or some variant thereof.  I can think of situations where asking multiple 
times does make sense, like in our practical exams - there's an "End 
Exam" button, but we verify that the user meant to end the exam because 
once they end, they can't get back in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps, but I do agree with Chambers on this one - how many times have 
> we seen:

Sure. That's a little different from "Hey, I'm about to ask you to enter the 
root password now, because I need that to do what you asked, OK?"  It's not 
asking multiple times. It's telling you it got an error which it might be 
able to work around if it asks for the password.

It's the same as saying
% rm xyz
Permission denied
% sudo rm xyz
Password:

Suddenly, you have to ask twice, once by typing sudo, once by entering the 
password. Why wouldn't "rm xyz" just automatically prompt for the password?

Which is not to say it's perfect. But it's better than having something 
randomly pop up a security prompt without telling you what it's for.

-- 
   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

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.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:10:38 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps, but I do agree with Chambers on this one - how many times have
>> we seen:
> 
> Sure. That's a little different from "Hey, I'm about to ask you to enter
> the root password now, because I need that to do what you asked, OK?" 
> It's not asking multiple times. It's telling you it got an error which
> it might be able to work around if it asks for the password.
> 
> It's the same as saying
> % rm xyz
> Permission denied
> % sudo rm xyz
> Password:

I think that's a little different than the scenario that was discussed, 
though - "I'm going to ask you for permission, OK?", followed by "I'm 
asking you for permission" is a little confusing.

It would be better for the second prompt to just explain about it rather 
than have an additional prompt.

> Suddenly, you have to ask twice, once by typing sudo, once by entering
> the password. Why wouldn't "rm xyz" just automatically prompt for the
> password?
> 
> Which is not to say it's perfect. But it's better than having something
> randomly pop up a security prompt without telling you what it's for.

The better design would be for the prompt to tell you at the time it 
comes up, not to warn you "I'm going to prompt you in a second for 
permission for this".  If it does that, it might as well also say "Oh, by 
the way, I just asked you for permission for this.  Did you see that 
prompt?" after it's asked for permission.  And then confirm that next 
dialog.  And so on. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:10:38 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Perhaps, but I do agree with Chambers on this one - how many times have
>>> we seen:
>> Sure. That's a little different from "Hey, I'm about to ask you to enter
>> the root password now, because I need that to do what you asked, OK?" 
>> It's not asking multiple times. It's telling you it got an error which
>> it might be able to work around if it asks for the password.
>>
>> It's the same as saying
>> % rm xyz
>> Permission denied
>> % sudo rm xyz
>> Password:
> 
> I think that's a little different than the scenario that was discussed, 
> though - "I'm going to ask you for permission, OK?", followed by "I'm 
> asking you for permission" is a little confusing.

I suppose. It's the same sequence of events as the Unix mechanism, except 
the Unix mechanism doesn't give you the same kind of prompt. It makes you 
start over, instead.

> It would be better for the second prompt to just explain about it rather 
> than have an additional prompt.

Maybe. On the other hand, this way they can make the code small and clean, 
without having (perhaps) a problem with getting to the help file and so on. 
I.e., if you made it so the prompt could tell you everything you needed to 
know, it might wind up needing things that only the unprivileged session can 
get to anyway.

I'm not saying it's the best way to do it. I'm just saying it's not as bad 
as people make it out to be, because such a warning is actually more 
consistent than randomly popping up a box asking for the admin password.

> The better design would be for the prompt to tell you at the time it 
> comes up, not to warn you "I'm going to prompt you in a second for 
> permission for this".

Why would that be better?  I think I've already explained why the two-prompt 
is better. I think your mechanism is only better if you're a nerd and you 
already know when you're doing something that's going to trigger the prompt.

Explain to someone who doesn't understand computers how to tell when it's OK 
to answer yes to the prompt.

-- 
   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

Chambers wrote:
> ...is that it tells me it's going to ask my permission for something 
> before it asks my permission.
> 
> A smart program would figure out that if I say "yes" to the first, I'm 
> probably going to say "yes" to the second as well.

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.

The *smart* thing for Microsoft to do would be to not actually create the folder
until you've specified what name you want for it (and allowing 'New Folder' as
default if you don't care), or at a minimum allow the account that created the
folder the right to rename it also ... yet they don't.

The reason? I don't think it's because they're dumb, I think it's because they
just don't care. After all, it's not their time being wasted.

-- Chris

NB I hear this is fixed in Windows 7, though in what way I don't know.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:36:13 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>> I think that's a little different than the scenario that was discussed,
>> though - "I'm going to ask you for permission, OK?", followed by "I'm
>> asking you for permission" is a little confusing.
> 
> I suppose. It's the same sequence of events as the Unix mechanism,
> except the Unix mechanism doesn't give you the same kind of prompt. It
> makes you start over, instead.

Well, not really.  The Unix mechanism is saying "you tried to do 
something that you don't have permission to do".  Then the user tries 
with elevated privs.

The Unix mechanism isn't saying "I'm going to ask for permission to do 
this".

For example, if I run yast2 -i on my openSUSE box, it's going to prompt 
me using gnomesu or kdesu for the root password (and the dialog explicity 
says "root privileges are needed to perform this action").  It doesn't 
try with lower privs (unless I type too quickly, I need to file a bug on 
that) and then say "hey, I need to ask you for permission to do this, 
back in a second" and then a dialog prompts me.

>> It would be better for the second prompt to just explain about it
>> rather than have an additional prompt.
> 
> Maybe. On the other hand, this way they can make the code small and
> clean, without having (perhaps) a problem with getting to the help file
> and so on. I.e., if you made it so the prompt could tell you everything
> you needed to know, it might wind up needing things that only the
> unprivileged session can get to anyway.
> 
> I'm not saying it's the best way to do it. I'm just saying it's not as
> bad as people make it out to be, because such a warning is actually more
> consistent than randomly popping up a box asking for the admin password.

Well, heaven forbid we train users on how to do things and what things 
mean. ;-)

Seriously, sometimes it's a wonder that they ever figure out how to use a 
word processor or spreadsheet.  The apps don't need to treat them like 
idiots, there's no reason for the OS to do so either.

My mom - who has been kinda the "poster child" for this type of thing for 
me - was easily trained on how to know when it was appropriate to accept 
an outbound connection when her firewall app (the name of which escapes 
me at the moment) asks if the app should be allowed to do this or not.  
She's in her 70's and not the most computer literate person on the planet 
- prior to getting a PC, the most she did with a computer was play Pac 
Man on it.  Seriously.

>> The better design would be for the prompt to tell you at the time it
>> comes up, not to warn you "I'm going to prompt you in a second for
>> permission for this".
> 
> Why would that be better?  I think I've already explained why the
> two-prompt is better. I think your mechanism is only better if you're a
> nerd and you already know when you're doing something that's going to
> trigger the prompt.

Well, I disagree.

> Explain to someone who doesn't understand computers how to tell when
> it's OK to answer yes to the prompt.

As noted above, have done so.  It's not rocket science.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, not really.  The Unix mechanism is saying "you tried to do 
> something that you don't have permission to do".  Then the user tries 
> with elevated privs.
> 
> The Unix mechanism isn't saying "I'm going to ask for permission to do 
> this".

Sure. Now write a version of the UNIX "rm" command that asks you for the 
admin prompt if it fails.

> For example, if I run yast2 -i on my openSUSE box, it's going to prompt 
> me using gnomesu or kdesu for the root password (and the dialog explicity 
> says "root privileges are needed to perform this action").

Right. That's like clicking on a link with a shield icon, under Vista.

> It doesn't try with lower privs (unless I type too quickly, I need to file a bug on 
> that) and then say "hey, I need to ask you for permission to do this, 
> back in a second" and then a dialog prompts me.

The things that UAC prompts twice for are the things it tries to do that may 
or may not work without elevation. Like, say, creating a file in a 
write-protected directory - you can't tell if that's going to work before 
you try it, so you try it without privilege, and if it fails, it says "Say, 
do you want to try that with privilege?"  And if you say yes, it prompts for 
the password.

If you're just (say) trying to modify firewall settings, there's no prompt 
beforehand saying "I'm going to prompt you for this." If it knows it needs 
escalation before it tries, it doesn't tell you it's going to ask first.

> Well, heaven forbid we train users on how to do things and what things 
> mean. ;-)

Clearly it doesn't work, tho. Otherwise, Windows would be as free of viri as 
Linux is. Users use admin accounts for everyday work, run random executables 
mailed to them by people they don't know, and so on. That's just the reality 
of it.

> Seriously, sometimes it's a wonder that they ever figure out how to use a 
> word processor or spreadsheet.  The apps don't need to treat them like 
> idiots, there's no reason for the OS to do so either.

They aren't idiots. They just don't know enough about computers to know why 
some random application would be asking them for permission to do something.

>> Explain to someone who doesn't understand computers how to tell when
>> it's OK to answer yes to the prompt.
> 
> As noted above, have done so.  It's not rocket science.

No, you claimed you taught your mom how to know when it's OK to let a 
program communicate outbound. I'm not sure how that relates to anything, nor 
did you tell me what you told her.

-- 
   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

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.

> The *smart* thing for Microsoft to do would be to not actually create the folder
> until you've specified what name you want for it (and allowing 'New Folder' as
> default if you don't care), or at a minimum allow the account that created the
> folder the right to rename it also ... yet they don't.

Yes. They could just hold onto the privilege token for five minutes (just 
like sudo does) and reuse it if they have another operation involving the 
same folder, for example.

> The reason? I don't think it's because they're dumb, I think it's because they
> just don't care. After all, it's not their time being wasted.

Could be that. Could be that they're rushed.

> NB I hear this is fixed in Windows 7, though in what way I don't know.

In a worse way, unfortunately. In a broken-security kind of way. MS 
apparently doesn't want to take the time to code it up right, which is a 
shame, because you'd think that's exactly the sort of thing where they could 
make a library that says "here's how you do it right" and everyone would be 
happy.

-- 
   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 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

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?

> 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.

Yeah.

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.

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.

> 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.

-- 
   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 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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

I did too, while I was installing stuff. Then I turned it back on.

Come to think of it, I have to wonder how much of the griping about "too 
many UAC prompts" comes from vocal reporters whose job it is to do stuff 
like install and remove software and then write about it publicly.

The traditional "read email/surf web/write documents/balance checkbook" 
grandmothers that the Linux folks generally use as "typical home desktop 
user model" are unlikely to ever run across a UAC on Windows, except maybe 
during a software upgrade.

> 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.

I never heard of such an ActiveX, so I can't comment.

> 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.

Me too. :-)  But you have to admit, there are groups of people who trust the 
Linux distributors (or Microsoft or Apple) more than they trust their own 
ability to make such decisions.

> I think we both do that, and that we both do it causes the confusion and 
> violent agreements. ;-)

Heh. I'll keep an eye out.

-- 
   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 Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:30:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I did too, while I was installing stuff. Then I turned it back on.
> 
> Come to think of it, I have to wonder how much of the griping about "too
> many UAC prompts" comes from vocal reporters whose job it is to do stuff
> like install and remove software and then write about it publicly.

Maybe.  But they probably are supposed to install it like people who 
don't know computers use computers.

> The traditional "read email/surf web/write documents/balance checkbook"
> grandmothers that the Linux folks generally use as "typical home desktop
> user model" are unlikely to ever run across a UAC on Windows, except
> maybe during a software upgrade.

Possibly.

>> 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.
> 
> I never heard of such an ActiveX, so I can't comment.

I thought it was the one that started this thread (come to think, it was 
another) - a silently installed control in FF on Windows that comes with 
the .net framework update.

>> 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.
> 
> Me too. :-)  But you have to admit, there are groups of people who trust
> the Linux distributors (or Microsoft or Apple) more than they trust
> their own ability to make such decisions.

Yes, but I think that comes down to poor education on computers in 
general. :-)

>> I think we both do that, and that we both do it causes the confusion
>> and violent agreements. ;-)
> 
> Heh. I'll keep an eye out.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Maybe.  But they probably are supposed to install it like people who 
> don't know computers use computers.

I think I did it again. :-) I'm not talking about first setting up the OS. 
I'm more talking about the people who complain they get dozens of UAC 
prompts a day.

>> I never heard of such an ActiveX, so I can't comment.
> 
> I thought it was the one that started this thread (come to think, it was 
> another) - a silently installed control in FF on Windows that comes with 
> the .net framework update.

Oh, I didn't realize that was ActiveX.  I wasn't aware you *could* "silently 
install" a plug-in in firefox. Every time I install one or it gets upgraded, 
Firefox is very in my face about it.

> Yes, but I think that comes down to poor education on computers in 
> general. :-)

Exactly. That's my point. If you're educated enough to know what you're 
doing, you're educated enough to adjust it to behave how you want it to.

-- 
   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 Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:14:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Maybe.  But they probably are supposed to install it like people who
>> don't know computers use computers.
> 
> I think I did it again. :-) I'm not talking about first setting up the
> OS. I'm more talking about the people who complain they get dozens of
> UAC prompts a day.

We are talking about the same thing. :-)

>>> I never heard of such an ActiveX, so I can't comment.
>> 
>> I thought it was the one that started this thread (come to think, it
>> was another) - a silently installed control in FF on Windows that comes
>> with the .net framework update.
> 
> Oh, I didn't realize that was ActiveX.  I wasn't aware you *could*
> "silently install" a plug-in in firefox. Every time I install one or it
> gets upgraded, Firefox is very in my face about it.

My understanding from that thread was that it is ActiveX.  And I'm sure 
there's a way to install an extension for FF without invoking FF, that's 
probably what Microsoft has done.

>> Yes, but I think that comes down to poor education on computers in
>> general. :-)
> 
> Exactly. That's my point. If you're educated enough to know what you're
> doing, you're educated enough to adjust it to behave how you want it to.

Except that it should be designed properly to begin with. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> We are talking about the same thing. :-)

Could be.

> My understanding from that thread was that it is ActiveX.

I wouldn't be surprised. But being ActiveX doesn't preclude it being other 
things as well. Technically, Word is ActiveX as well. :-)

> And I'm sure 
> there's a way to install an extension for FF without invoking FF, that's 
> probably what Microsoft has done.

Yeah. And FF is designed to support that, so I'm at a loss why people thing 
something's done wrong. :-)

> Except that it should be designed properly to begin with. :-)

Hard to do, with conflicting requirements. Very difficult to design one car 
that supports both Indy racing and people who don't know how to drive.

-- 
   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 Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:32:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We are talking about the same thing. :-)
> 
> Could be.
> 
>> My understanding from that thread was that it is ActiveX.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised. But being ActiveX doesn't preclude it being
> other things as well. Technically, Word is ActiveX as well. :-)

True...

>> And I'm sure
>> there's a way to install an extension for FF without invoking FF,
>> that's probably what Microsoft has done.
> 
> Yeah. And FF is designed to support that, so I'm at a loss why people
> thing something's done wrong. :-)

Stealth installations are generally frowned upon.  But even in non-
stealth setups, I get sick of extra crap being included in downloads.  
Sun started including the "MSN Toolbar" in their JRE downloads.  Why on 
Earth would I want that crap on my system?  I always forget about it 
(remote installs for testing centers running Windows) and end up having 
to remove it once the installer is done.

I wanted the Sun JVM.  That's it.  If I wanted the stupid MSN Toolbar, 
I'd download that and install it separately.  I really wish companies 
would stop bundling crapware with their products.

>> Except that it should be designed properly to begin with. :-)
> 
> Hard to do, with conflicting requirements. Very difficult to design one
> car that supports both Indy racing and people who don't know how to
> drive.

People who don't know how to drive shouldn't be driving. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I wanted the Sun JVM.  That's it.  If I wanted the stupid MSN Toolbar, 
> I'd download that and install it separately.  I really wish companies 
> would stop bundling crapware with their products.

The problem is that MSN (and Google and Yahoo and ...) pay about $5 to Sun 
if you install the toolbar. That's a powerful incentive. Primarily caused by 
people so oblivious to what's getting installed that they just click OK. :-)

Same reason Google is fighting Microsoft over default browsers.

-- 
   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 Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:35:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I wanted the Sun JVM.  That's it.  If I wanted the stupid MSN Toolbar,
>> I'd download that and install it separately.  I really wish companies
>> would stop bundling crapware with their products.
> 
> The problem is that MSN (and Google and Yahoo and ...) pay about $5 to
> Sun if you install the toolbar. That's a powerful incentive. Primarily
> caused by people so oblivious to what's getting installed that they just
> click OK. :-)
> 
> Same reason Google is fighting Microsoft over default browsers.

Well yes, that is the problem - greed often is the problem. :-)

And yeah, it's not just MSN that's the problem.

Jim

Post a reply to this message