Personally, I find it extremely funny the number of people complaining about
UAC.
This shows just how spoiled (spoilt) Windows users are. Linux/Unix users
are very familiar with having to elevate privileges to make system changes,
and/or installing programs. I'm not a Unix guru, but I'm pretty sure there
is no option in Unix/Linux to turn this behavior off, and for good reason.
The only thing better (in a way) about the way it's done in Linux/Unix is
that it elevates the privileges for the user, not just the application, and
it maintains this state for a set number of minutes, based on the last
application you've used that needs elevated privileges. (IE: You run a
network config, close that and the countdown starts, before the counter
reaches zero you run another system settings app, countdown stops, you
maintain root privileges, close that app, countdown starts again. If no
other app needing root runs, your elevated states ends).
This WOULD NOT work in a Windows system, why?
Easy, there is so much mal-ware out there for Windows (and it seems they can
run on Vista as well) that giving the user total Admin privileges for any
amount of time leaves the entire system exposed. Better to have it on an
application by application basis, so the system stays as secure as possible
all the time.
The downside is, of course, each time you run an application that needs
admin permissions you'll either get a pop up (if the user is an admin) that
you just have to click (big deal), or you get a pop up asking for the admin
password (better for stopping Junior from installing something that you
don't want him too).
There is also no way to run the root user account all the time safely in
Unix/Linux. If you do, sure you don't ever have to type in your password to
do anything you want, but that means anything/one ELSE that gets on your
system can do anything it/they want as well. (Sound familiar?
<cough>XP<cough>) At least with UAC you can run all the time as admin and
all you have to do is click a pop up, you're still pretty well secure and
don't have to type a password in for everything.
People complain, "Windows is so insecure, they need to do something to make
it more secure." and this is true, they do, but because so much damage has
been done already, they can't simply do what they should have done before;
default the system to run each user as a standard user. Since they didn't
with XP, legitimate programmers made use of the fact that most users were
running as admin and were lazy about programming (especially game designers)
and let their programs write to what should have been protected system
folders, at will. Also, with all the mal-ware out there already, the best
thing to do at this point is have the system make sure something that's
trying to install or write to protected folders is something that the user
knows about and wants to install. UAC is the way Microsoft has chosen to do
just this.
Is it practical from a users point of view? Not really, it's a little
inconvenient, but I'd rather have to click a few extra times, and have my
kid call me for the password when he wants to install a game, than to spend
time either cleaning mal-ware off my system, or reinstalling Windows for the
umpteenth time on Junior's machine because he won't listen about downloading
Warez.
I believe that UAC isn't going to help as much as Microsoft thinks though.
People that already click "Yes" at every we page they go to in IE will
simply click "Yes" every time they see the UAC pop up and still get
infected; UNLESS, and people will hate this as well, unless Microsoft makes
it a mandatory read on using UAC properly at first start for each new user.
That won't happen though, and people will have no clue what UAC is (we're
beta testers, this usually means we're computer savvy and are aware of
proper computer security.)
Not bragging, but in 24 years of using/building/administering computers I've
had one mal-ware program infect one of my computers, but I know what I'm
doing, too many average users are clueless about proper security.
In the end, it's the user that has to be smart about their computers and too
many people simply don't think they should have to learn about these things.
I recently went on a job to find out why the customer's daughter's computer
was running like a 386 when it's a P4 . . . it was easy to figure out, there
was so much mal-ware on her machine it was a wonder it started at all, let
alone taking 10 minutes (no joke) to get to the desktop. I wasn't even
going to attempt to clean that system. Backup, format, start all over.
The girl's father is in his 50's, has a degree in electronics but knows
nothing about computers.
Thought Windows was on a chip in the computer.
That is your average user.
Mic
"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:e4y$nPc1GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> for those who don't know what RSI is read here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury
> but if you are a vista user or will become one, you will know very well
> what it is "firsthand" no pun intended.
>
> UAC is that horrible idea some retarded person in MS thought of that pops
> 100 times in your face.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control
> You have to do so many mouse clicks and movments that the RSI foundation
> should sue
> Microsoft for destroying the health of so many people world wide.
>
> This is NOT taking into account the stress and fustration this "FEATURE"
> will introduce to the world.
>
> Perhaps a multi billion law suit will make MS think how to design an OS
> for humans.
>
>
>