Used Windows XP over the weekend
mlw
that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh, and then, in a
mostly cygwin environment.
Well, a friend wanted to do some stuff with her computer and I offered to
help.
What a mistake.
I don't know how anyone can say Windows is easy to use. I use Macs, KDE,
GNOME, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris machines regularly.
Did you ever notice, it seems like XP tries to hide other programs? If you
are not familiar with the environment, you click on the menu button, and
you have to really look at the menu items to see what you want to do. With
every other environment, it is easy to follow, with Windows you can't work
by "reflex."
Did you ever notice that the start button menu takes up a large portion of
the screen?
Did you ever notice that the childish artwork on the window frames and
titles bars is HUGE and uses up a lot of the screen? The environment is so
inflexible that, unless you get some 3rd party add ons, you are more or
less stuck with this layout.
The command line sucks!!! Limited line editing, poor scripting, yuck, no
wonder I use cygwin.
Cut and Paste sucks, when I highlight some text, and I middle click on an
edit box it doesn't work. I have to go back, hit <ctrl>c on the source
text, and hit <ctrl>v on the destination.
There's no multiple screen system so that I can have many things up at the
same time, each time I want to change applications, I have to <alt>tab
through the list until I find the one I want.
Why the hell do I still have to reboot every time I install a new program or
update?
I tell you, when I came back to my Linux box, I remembered why I switched.
B Gruff
> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows 2000
> box,
Over 2 years now in may case.
Sorry to snip so much of your excellent posting, but I'm trying to reduce my
"quoted" length to become a Top Quality Poster again.
I think that my responses will be self-explanatory:-
Oh yes?
Oh yes!
Exactly:-)
Yes:-)
Yes:-)
Yes:-)
Yes:-)
Yes:-)
Yes:-)
I haven't a clue:-)
Oh yes:-) You'll remember again next time your Windows partition borks
itself, but you can still read the data via Linux.... (voice of experience
here!)
Roy Schestowitz
> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows 2000
> box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh, and then, in a
> mostly cygwin environment.
This reminds me of a previous post of mine.
I survived with Windows for two weeks, but I was utterly disappointed with
the experience. Anyone who is forced to work under Windows will be extremely
unproductive at the end of the day. Only by mastering other platforms can a
regular Windows user appreciate productivity gains. That's the sas thing
though. Very few people in the world (perhaps 80%) have used an operating
system other than Windows. There is no room for valid judgment to be made.
> Well, a friend wanted to do some stuff with her computer and I offered to
> help.
>
> What a mistake.
>
> I don't know how anyone can say Windows is easy to use. I use Macs, KDE,
> GNOME, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris machines regularly.
>
> Did you ever notice, it seems like XP tries to hide other programs? If you
> are not familiar with the environment, you click on the menu button, and
> you have to really look at the menu items to see what you want to do. With
> every other environment, it is easy to follow, with Windows you can't work
> by "reflex."
I was never keen of Windows' support (or lack thereof) for keyboard
accelerators. It just doesn't facilitate the feature properly. The
assignment of desktop items to Ctrl+Alt-based shortcut is inflexible.
Moreover, this means that I had to place items on my desktop just so that I
can assign shortcuts to them. Scripting and third-party addons were out of
the question (work, complexity, nags, and resource drains).
> Did you ever notice that the start button menu takes up a large portion of
> the screen?
It's the lipstick factor. The bigger the better. Would you like me to
supersize that, Sir?
> Did you ever notice that the childish artwork on the window frames and
> titles bars is HUGE and uses up a lot of the screen? The environment is so
> inflexible that, unless you get some 3rd party add ons, you are more or
> less stuck with this layout.
You neglected mention the Teletubby mounds that are there by default. Tinky
Winky!! I got Windows installed! Now how in f*cking h*ll do I modify that
s*it?
> The command line sucks!!! Limited line editing, poor scripting, yuck, no
> wonder I use cygwin.
This reminds me of a nice essay that speaks of all the functionality you lose
if you ever migrate from Linux (back*) to Windows. I could probably find it
on DesktopLinux.com, even eWEEK.
> Cut and Paste sucks, when I highlight some text, and I middle click on an
> edit box it doesn't work. I have to go back, hit <ctrl>c on the source
> text, and hit <ctrl>v on the destination.
Try copying and pasting 1000 fields from one program to another manually.
It's not just the Ctrl-based shortcuts that make you lose the will to live.
It's also Windows focus, which in Windows forces a click. *sigh*
> There's no multiple screen system so that I can have many things up at the
> same time, each time I want to change applications, I have to <alt>tab
> through the list until I find the one I want.
There are third-party addons for Windows, but they are not integrated into
the core. Thus, they are very, very miserable in terms of functionality.
Morever, they are unreliable and inefficient (compare plug-ins and hooks
with full trunk inclusion). Not good if you move between machines, either.
Takes hours just to get it to work right. Windows requires _a lot_ more
tweaking to get it working /properly/. Linux comes mint out of the box. Just
change colour/themes, potentionally adding some packages /without/ having to
travel from one Web site to another. It's a tickbox belt-and-braces
exercise.
> Why the hell do I still have to reboot every time I install a new program
> or update?
Because you chose to be using Windows (Duh!). *smile*
> I tell you, when I came back to my Linux box, I remembered why I switched.
Don't just remember. Tell others, too. You'll be doing them a tremendous
favour, trust me.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Bottom-post: as English goes from top to bottom
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 19.8% user, 3.4% system, 14.9% nice, 61.9% idle
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
BearItAll
> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows 2000
> box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh, and then, in
> a mostly cygwin environment.
>
I have to pop back to Windows, because my users use it, but I find that more
and more I am struggling with what should be fairly basic stuff.
> Well, a friend wanted to do some stuff with her computer and I offered to
> help.
>
> What a mistake.
>
> I don't know how anyone can say Windows is easy to use. I use Macs, KDE,
> GNOME, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris machines regularly.
>
> Did you ever notice, it seems like XP tries to hide other programs? If you
> are not familiar with the environment, you click on the menu button, and
> you have to really look at the menu items to see what you want to do. With
> every other environment, it is easy to follow, with Windows you can't work
> by "reflex."
>
I have tried in the past to group users menus into functional groups. It
seems ok until you add another program that needs menu access. Some do it
correctly, asking where it should put the menu item, others assume a
certain layering of the menu tree and fail completely, one even crashed the
system. Crashed system on a menu edit? Does that mean the menu is in the
kernel? No and yes, MS Win doesn't really have a kernel as such so I'm
afraid actions like this can crash it.
> Did you ever notice that the start button menu takes up a large portion of
> the screen?
>
Most of my users grumbled that large menu structures would disapear off the
screen, I wasn't sure what to do about that, whough I experimented with
small fonts, until one of them switched to the old style windows menu, now
they all do it.
I understand why MS did the new style though, because most of us are in the
same few programs most of the time, so it might be handy to have them
there.
> The command line sucks!!! Limited line editing, poor scripting, yuck, no
> wonder I use cygwin.
>
It does suck, but there are still some things you can not do in their GUI,
like the 'net' command. I would have said an essential tool, but MS don't
make it easy to get at. Plus of cause renaming a file extension and
clearing a corrupt print from the spool. They are probably more, MS
weindows aren't meant to do anything like change the oil or check the water
level though, so maybe thats why they do this.
> There's no multiple screen system so that I can have many things up at the
> same time, each time I want to change applications, I have to <alt>tab
> through the list until I find the one I want.
>
I missed multi-screen when I was doing a client for some software. In Linux
I have terminals for vi, compile and text. Then usually a few limited
shells for further testing, so I spread out across the screens. MS just
feels cluttered to me, everything you want is behind something else, bit
like my desk.
> Why the hell do I still have to reboot every time I install a new program
> or update?
>
How long since you installed one from scratch. MS itself isn't too bad,
fairly quick to install, 2 reboots, maybe another depending on if it had to
do initial work on the hard drive. Then another after you have got in. Not
bad really.
Then you are hit my a cocophony of pop ups and applications all crying out
for attention. The anti-v will do an immediate update followed by the need
for a reboot, if you got one of the internet security suites then each part
will want a reboot. The icons on your screen that have only just been
loaded will disapear as a pop up says 'I have moved unused icons and I aint
telling you where' (you can hear evil devilish cackling far in the
distance). You are asked to do a Windows update, but you are sat there
wondering if it is alright to allow this at the same time the security
suite is updating. You do it anyway. Turns out it can matter a lot. So
after the reboot and the 'I hate you messages' from Symantec because you
buggered up the update, you have to reinstall the Internet security suite
anyway and then it says, this is an OEM you can not install it, and it
seems to finish the message with an invisible, you shouldn't have removed
me pratt.
Its a bit mind blowing. Can fully understand users getting into trouble with
this nonsense and simply switching all of this security stuff off.
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows
> 2000 box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh,
> and then, in a mostly cygwin environment.
>
> Well, a friend wanted to do some stuff with her computer and I
> offered to help.
>
> What a mistake.
>
> I don't know how anyone can say Windows is easy to use.
AFAICT it seems to be a constant battle.
Windows File Protection sows backup copies of files all over the
place, locks them, makes upgrades or customization a nightmare, and
does little but facilitate a safe harbour for Malware, which then
invokes a whole new type of battle.
Windows is notoriously inept at recovering from its own
cock-ups. Corruption of the registry, filesystem, or system files,
invariably requires a wipe'n'reinstallŽ that would be completely
unnecessary in a similar situation under Linux. The real irony is,
that a Live Linux CD cam often be used to fix *Windows*, where it
cannot fix itself. There are half a dozen different methods purported
to facilitate various types of "recovery" under Windows, such as the
Recovery Console, System File Checker, System Restore, Driver
Roll-Back, ad nauseam, none of which seem very effective. A simple
implementation of something like RPM would greatly enhance Windows'
ability to be healed, but instead you have that monstrosity called the
Registry, that AFAICT seems mostly irreparable.
> Why the hell do I still have to reboot every time I install a new
> program or update?
Ah, that old chestnut. Wiggle the mouse; reboot. Windows is a victim
of it's own overcomplexity and amateurish design.
> I tell you, when I came back to my Linux box, I remembered why I
> switched.
Just cast your eyes over the spam in your inbox, and remember where it
came from.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
14:08:10 up 22 days, 14:25, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Da'Punk-A
BearItAll wrote:
>
> I have tried in the past to group users menus into functional groups. It
> seems ok until you add another program that needs menu access. Some do it
> correctly, asking where it should put the menu item, others assume a
> certain layering of the menu tree and fail completely, one even crashed the
> system. Crashed system on a menu edit? Does that mean the menu is in the
> kernel? No and yes, MS Win doesn't really have a kernel as such so I'm
> afraid actions like this can crash it.
What /is/ it about Windows that makes it crash so much? I have a
pretty slow internet connection at home, so I tend to use Windows boxes
at the local library and community centre a fair bit. I've been using
Ubuntu Linux at home for 4 months now, and occasionally an application
will crash, but never the whole computer. Yet the machines at the
library and the community centre, all running XP, seem to crash a fair
bit - not just an app failing, but the whole system biting the dust.
And a friend of mine, who unfortunately is a gaming freak and refuses
to even consider Linux until all his fave games will run natively -
he's always complaining about frequent Windows crashes.
I know that the MS apologists will denounce this as a lintard lie. But
it happens. Before I started using Linux, I thought it was /normal/
for computers to do this. How sad is that - Microsoft has such a hold
on the minds of consumers, that Windows == Computers, and Windows'
failures are seen as standard.
DFS
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:44:44 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [ mlw ] on Monday 10 July 2006 12:49 \__
>>
>>> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows
>>> 2000 box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh,
>>> and then, in a mostly cygwin environment.
>>
>>
>> This reminds me of a previous post of mine.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Do you have to try and "one up" other people's posts all the time?
> You're like some kid in a playground yelling "my bike is better than
> yours".
>
> If you're looking to splatter your name all over the place so your
> website gets hits, there are better ways of going about it.
>
> Try posting something original for example.
BWAAHAHAHA!!!
I just saw last week's stats. Roy Schestowitz: 351 posts. 351!?!?! 50 per
day?
Kier
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:44:44 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [ mlw ] on Monday 10 July 2006 12:49 \__
>>
>>> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows 2000
>>> box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh, and then, in a
>>> mostly cygwin environment.
>>
>>
>> This reminds me of a previous post of mine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roy
>
> Do you have to try and "one up" other people's posts all the time?
> You're like some kid in a playground yelling "my bike is better than yours".
>
> If you're looking to splatter your name all over the place so your website
> gets hits, there are better ways of going about it.
Don't make unsubstantiated allegations.
>
> Try posting something original for example.
Coming from you, that's a real joke. How about *you* try posting some
original Linux advocacy first, before criticising others.
--
Kier
Chirag Shukla
Actually, quite a lot of Roy S's posts are pretty decent. The only
thing I wonder is how a PhD candidate can find as much time to post
news, read and reply to other posts -- unless the topic of research is
Usenet. But I'd read his posts over most other advocates.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> I just saw last week's stats. Roy Schestowitz: 351 posts. 351!?!?!
>> 50 per day?
>
> Actually, quite a lot of Roy S's posts are pretty decent. The only
> thing I wonder is how a PhD candidate can find as much time to post
> news, read and reply to other posts -- unless the topic of research is
> Usenet. But I'd read his posts over most other advocates.
As far as I remember, all he posts is NEWS links to articles written by
others, accompanied by a misleading subject intended to make you think the
world has embraced open source and replaced Windows. But when you read the
article, it's often one small govt department.
DFS
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:56:00 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>
>> As far as I remember, all he posts is NEWS links to articles written
>> by others, accompanied by a misleading subject intended to make you
>> think the world has embraced open source and replaced Windows. But
>> when you read the article, it's often one small govt department.
> variations.
> They boy is twisted and his purpose here in COLA is nothing more than
> trying to get hits for his pay for website......
I plonked the dullard a while ago.
Paul
> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows 2000
> box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh, and then, in
> a mostly cygwin environment.
>
> Well, a friend wanted to do some stuff with her computer and I offered to
> help.
>
> What a mistake.
>
> I don't know how anyone can say Windows is easy to use. I use Macs, KDE,
> GNOME, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris machines regularly.
>
> Did you ever notice, it seems like XP tries to hide other programs? If you
> are not familiar with the environment, you click on the menu button, and
> you have to really look at the menu items to see what you want to do. With
> every other environment, it is easy to follow, with Windows you can't work
> by "reflex."
Have you ever noticed how Linux doesn't show 50% (or more) of the installed
programs on the start menu? And with both KDE and Gnome you really have to
look through the items/menus to find what you want until you get used to
where the items are...
>
> Did you ever notice that the start button menu takes up a large portion of
> the screen?
Did you ever notice how HUGE the taskbar is on KDE? or that Gnome as TWO
bars taking up screen area.
>
> Did you ever notice that the childish artwork on the window frames and
> titles bars is HUGE and uses up a lot of the screen?
Did you ever notice how 1990's Gnome looks as default? KDE ain't much better
with a default theme rivalled only by Windows s 3.11
> The environment is so
> inflexible that, unless you get some 3rd party add ons, you are more or
> less stuck with this layout.
What's the difference between a 3rd party add on for Windows and a Windows
manager for Linux that allows customised windows? Last time I checked Gnome
only allows a basic customisation of its window layout; just basically
colours and title bar size.
>
> The command line sucks!!! Limited line editing, poor scripting, yuck, no
> wonder I use cygwin.
>
> Cut and Paste sucks, when I highlight some text, and I middle click on an
> edit box it doesn't work. I have to go back, hit <ctrl>c on the source
> text, and hit <ctrl>v on the destination.
Ugh yes. Give me a Linux Terminal/Konsole were I have to remember that paste
is Shift-Insert whereas even other application uses the standard ctrl-V...
>
> There's no multiple screen system so that I can have many things up at the
> same time, each time I want to change applications, I have to <alt>tab
> through the list until I find the one I want.
..or you could do what most people do and resize the windows.
>
> Why the hell do I still have to reboot every time I install a new program
> or update?
Because your a prat? 99% of the time you don't have to reboot after
installing a program.
Can you tell me why I need to reboot Linux after I've updated the kernel?
I'd of thought that in this day and age there would be no need to reboot
just to update a few files....
Linonut
> I scored him down, but I think it's important for others to realzie what
> he is up to.
>
> IOW he is duping the Linux advocates big time and most of them still have
> not figured it out.
What, do the URLs he posts go through his site?
--
"I'm going to f'in *kill* Google!"
-- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft
Linonut
> Have you ever noticed how Linux doesn't show 50% (or more) of the installed
> programs on the start menu? And with both KDE and Gnome you really have to
> look through the items/menus to find what you want until you get used to
> where the items are...
Not like Windows, eh?
>> Did you ever notice that the start button menu takes up a large portion of
>> the screen?
>
> Did you ever notice how HUGE the taskbar is on KDE? or that Gnome as TWO
> bars taking up screen area.
Didja ever notice you can get rid of them if you want to?
You can even get rid of everything except the right mouse click on the
desktop.
> Did you ever notice how 1990's Gnome looks as default? KDE ain't much better
> with a default theme rivalled only by Windows s 3.11
I just notices what a lying, trolling, putz you are.
> What's the difference between a 3rd party add on for Windows and a Windows
> manager for Linux that allows customised windows? Last time I checked Gnome
> only allows a basic customisation of its window layout; just basically
> colours and title bar size.
And background colors and pattern (e.g. brushed metal), shapes of the
borders, even no borders if you want.
>> Cut and Paste sucks, when I highlight some text, and I middle click on an
>> edit box it doesn't work. I have to go back, hit <ctrl>c on the source
>> text, and hit <ctrl>v on the destination.
>
> Ugh yes. Give me a Linux Terminal/Konsole were I have to remember that paste
> is Shift-Insert whereas even other application uses the standard ctrl-V...
In linux, dude, Ctrl-V means "quote (verbatim) the next character" (to
insert invisible characters).
It had that meaning lonnnng before Billy Bitrot came up with ^V for
pasting.
>> There's no multiple screen system so that I can have many things up at the
>> same time, each time I want to change applications, I have to <alt>tab
>> through the list until I find the one I want.
>
> ..or you could do what most people do and resize the windows.
There's no substitute for virtual screens.
> Can you tell me why I need to reboot Linux after I've updated the kernel?
> I'd of thought that in this day and age there would be no need to reboot
> just to update a few files....
Who's the prat now? Hypocrite.
--
Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!
BearItAll
Cheat :)
BearItAll
First is the fact that everything in XP is visible. So actions by a user,
application, browser etc all have full access. You can of cause have your
users as 'user' rather than administrator levels, but the settings they
have chosen for this are so limiting that no one bothers with it. Is that
MS's fault? Yes, they could either have gone for a more sensible 'user'
level, or given accessibility options at the time the user is created. Why
didn't they do this? Well it turns out they couldn't, there aren't any
levels in there, there isn't any separation. You either have all rights or
almost none.
Then there is the memory fault. It has been in Windows since the very
beginning. It claims small amounts of memory and never gives it back, so
eventually you run out of ram and it crashes. How busy the computer/NT
server is depends on how long you get before the sluggish feel starts and
then the inevitable crash. What saved MS having to deal with this was the
fact that users were getting more ram because it was cheaper but also
larger hard drives offering more virtual ram, so in a normal evening on a
home PC the bug probably wouldn't be seen. But it is there. NT people have
to take their server down at regular intervals depending on how busy the
server is.
Robert Newson
...
> Yes:-)
>
> Yes:-)
>
> Yes:-)
>
> Yes:-)
>
> Yes:-)
>
> Yes:-)
I'll have one of what you're drinking...
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>
>> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows 2000
>> box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh, and then, in
>> a mostly cygwin environment.
>>
>> Well, a friend wanted to do some stuff with her computer and I offered to
>> help.
>>
>> What a mistake.
>>
>> I don't know how anyone can say Windows is easy to use. I use Macs, KDE,
>> GNOME, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris machines regularly.
>>
>> Did you ever notice, it seems like XP tries to hide other programs? If
>> you are not familiar with the environment, you click on the menu button,
>> and you have to really look at the menu items to see what you want to do.
>> With every other environment, it is easy to follow, with Windows you
>> can't work by "reflex."
>
> Have you ever noticed how Linux doesn't show 50% (or more) of the
> installed programs on the start menu? And with both KDE and Gnome you
> really have to look through the items/menus to find what you want until
> you get used to where the items are...
>
Yes, have you ever noticed that "All" systems do this? Count the number of
"*.exe" prorams there are on your system, and count the number of menu
entries and get back to me.
>>
>> Did you ever notice that the start button menu takes up a large portion
>> of the screen?
>
> Did you ever notice how HUGE the taskbar is on KDE? or that Gnome as TWO
> bars taking up screen area.
Did you ever notice that you could right click on the tak bar and have the
option of making it smaller and/or having it hide?
>
>>
>> Did you ever notice that the childish artwork on the window frames and
>> titles bars is HUGE and uses up a lot of the screen?
>
> Did you ever notice how 1990's Gnome looks as default? KDE ain't much
> better with a default theme rivalled only by Windows s 3.11
I won't speak to Gnome, but "deafult" doesn't matter, there are tons of
these availale to suite almost anyone. I currently use "Baghira."
>
>
>> The environment is so
>> inflexible that, unless you get some 3rd party add ons, you are more or
>> less stuck with this layout.
>
> What's the difference between a 3rd party add on for Windows and a Windows
> manager for Linux that allows customised windows?
Well, you can use the Window manager for your desktop environment, Gnome or
KDE, and customize with themes. Or, if you really wanted you could go wild
and use a new Window manager all together.
With Windows, 3rd party add-ons typically represent extra cost and Windows
tends to not like when base assumptions about fairly regular settings gget
changed.
> Last time I checked
> Gnome only allows a basic customisation of its window layout; just
> basically colours and title bar size.
Like I said, I can't speak to Gnome, but KDE rocks.
>
>>
>> The command line sucks!!! Limited line editing, poor scripting, yuck, no
>> wonder I use cygwin.
>>
>> Cut and Paste sucks, when I highlight some text, and I middle click on an
>> edit box it doesn't work. I have to go back, hit <ctrl>c on the source
>> text, and hit <ctrl>v on the destination.
>
> Ugh yes. Give me a Linux Terminal/Konsole were I have to remember that
> paste is Shift-Insert whereas even other application uses the standard
> ctrl-V...
The terminal/Knosole was aa UNIX standard long before IBM's "CUI" spec.
>>
>> There's no multiple screen system so that I can have many things up at
>> the same time, each time I want to change applications, I have to
>> <alt>tab through the list until I find the one I want.
>
> ..or you could do what most people do and resize the windows.
Yes, you could, but then you'd have half a dozen stamp sized rectangles on a
1280x1024 surface and none of them would be usable.
Roy Schestowitz
I'll have a pint of lager, please. The young lady on my side will have what
Bill was having.
chrisv
>Have you ever noticed
*plonk*
Ray Ingles
> Have you ever noticed how Linux doesn't show 50% (or more) of the installed
> programs on the start menu?
Well, from what I've seen, the ones it "doesn't show" are mostly
command-line programs (e.g. sed) that make no sense to run from a menu.
What amazes *me* about Windows is how the 'hide programs that haven't
been used in a while' system works. Here's what appears to be the
algorithm:
1. When a program is used, update a record of when it was used.
2. When building the menu, check the record.
a. If it was recently used, show it.
b. If it was used, but not recently, hide it.
c. If it has no use record, show it.
This has the result that programs that you use frequently show up on
the menu. Yippee. But (c) means that programs you have *never* used show
up, too. And programs that you *have* used, but not in a while, get
hidden.
So, programs that you've actually used are *less* visible than ones
you've never used. How does this *possibly* make sense? The only
workaround I've seen is to disable the 'hide programs' system completely
with a registry edit.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology [threatens
our] economic vitality and future security. [It] is to the American
film producer... as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."
- Jack Valenti, in 1982, regarding the advent of the VCR.
mlw
>
> mlw wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>> > mlw wrote:
>> >
>> >> I haven't seriously used Windows in almost a year, I have a Windows
>> >> 2000 box that I compile on, but I use it largely with VNC or ssh, and
>> >> then, in a mostly cygwin environment.
>> >>
>> >> Well, a friend wanted to do some stuff with her computer and I offered
>> >> to help.
>> >>
>> >> What a mistake.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how anyone can say Windows is easy to use. I use Macs,
>> >> KDE, GNOME, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris machines regularly.
>> >>
>> >> Did you ever notice, it seems like XP tries to hide other programs? If
>> >> you are not familiar with the environment, you click on the menu
>> >> button, and you have to really look at the menu items to see what you
>> >> want to do. With every other environment, it is easy to follow, with
>> >> Windows you can't work by "reflex."
>> >
>> > Have you ever noticed how Linux doesn't show 50% (or more) of the
>> > installed programs on the start menu? And with both KDE and Gnome you
>> > really have to look through the items/menus to find what you want until
>> > you get used to where the items are...
>> >
>>
>> Yes, have you ever noticed that "All" systems do this? Count the number
>> of "*.exe" prorams there are on your system, and count the number of menu
>> entries and get back to me.
>
> Cant believe you asked that bubble-gum question about *.exe!
Why?
> The guy
> might ask you to check the executables on *nix and get back to him.
Nope, he already implied that Linux doesn't show programs, and I wanted to
point out to the "person" that Windows does it as well.
> Use
> the system you like and make the best out of it.
Fine, but this is a Linux advocacy group, we advocate Linux. If we weren't
advocating Linux, what would be the point in posting?
> Personally, I dont
> even care how pretty/customizable Mac/Windows/Linux is.
I'm so happy for you, and this is relevent, how?
> I can get my stuffs done with relative ease anyway.
Again, I'm so happy for you.
> Modern OSes are easy to use thats the bottom line at my end.
Good for you.
> Yes, I have noticed the differences mentioned here but I just dont care.
Then why are you here?
> Lets get back to work.
I am working, I have a compile going on right now.
Johan Lindquist
Ray Ingles was all like, "Dude,
[..]
> So, programs that you've actually used are *less* visible than
> ones you've never used. How does this *possibly* make sense? The
> only workaround I've seen is to disable the 'hide programs' system
> completely with a registry edit.
s/registry edit/mouse click/, but to me it's a completely silly scheme
to even consider activating by default. Maybe you're supposed to click
on all the start menu entries one by one, and then pick the tools
you don't like and never click them again, making them eventually
disappear so that you can forget about having them installed at all?
Not to mention the "hide systray icons", that's another one that never
ceases to annoy me in a default config.
At least it's consistent, Office does the same thing with its menu
options, however there it's seemingly random as to which ones never
get hidden at all.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
15:54:52 up 2 days, 23:23, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Linux 2.6.16.18-xen x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Chirag Shukla
So you are happy now?
> > Use
> > the system you like and make the best out of it.
>
> Fine, but this is a Linux advocacy group, we advocate Linux. If we weren't
> advocating Linux, what would be the point in posting?
lol. Advocacy? You call all this advocacy?
> > Personally, I dont
> > even care how pretty/customizable Mac/Windows/Linux is.
>
> I'm so happy for you, and this is relevent, how?
If, rather than looking at the pretty and glossy styles and themes,
focus was on how quicker things can be done with Linux, that would
interest me a lot more.
>
> > Yes, I have noticed the differences mentioned here but I just dont care.
>
> Then why are you here?
To see what distributions are being advocated here and whether or not
some of my new users can adopt those distributions (e.g. PCLinuxOS).
Also helps to see what distributions others are using and what points
they feel good about. Again the differences mentioned *here* didnt help
me. It is also funny to see how cola is more of other OS bashing than
Linux advocacy. I was hoping to see new users flock here to ask for
opinion on their typical needs where Linux can do the job better.
Havent seen much of that.
>
> > Lets get back to work.
>
> I am working, I have a compile going on right now.
Great.
mlw
[SNIP]
>>
>> Fine, but this is a Linux advocacy group, we advocate Linux. If we
>> weren't advocating Linux, what would be the point in posting?
>
> lol. Advocacy? You call all this advocacy?
If you don't like it, don't read it, or even better, do better.
>
>> > Personally, I dont
>> > even care how pretty/customizable Mac/Windows/Linux is.
>>
>> I'm so happy for you, and this is relevent, how?
>
> If, rather than looking at the pretty and glossy styles and themes,
> focus was on how quicker things can be done with Linux, that would
> interest me a lot more.
That, of course, is a different subject all together and not actually what
is being discussed in this thread.
>
>>
>> > Yes, I have noticed the differences mentioned here but I just dont
>> > care.
>>
>> Then why are you here?
>
> To see what distributions are being advocated here and whether or not
> some of my new users can adopt those distributions (e.g. PCLinuxOS).
This is probably the worst place for this. Yes, you can pick up the distros
that are being discussed, but there be dragons.
Go to the sites of the various Linux distributions and download their
propaganda and do your pros/cons evaluation from that.
> Also helps to see what distributions others are using and what points
> they feel good about.
That you can get here.
> Again the differences mentioned *here* didnt help
> me.
It wasn't meant to help *you*
> It is also funny to see how cola is more of other OS bashing than
> Linux advocacy.
Sometimes that is true, sometimes it is not.
> I was hoping to see new users flock here to ask for
> opinion on their typical needs where Linux can do the job better.
Yea, that pipe dream does quickly.
> Havent seen much of that.
This really isn't the place for that. Find a moderated forum.
Chirag Shukla
Yup, am trying.
>
> >
> >> > Personally, I dont
> >> > even care how pretty/customizable Mac/Windows/Linux is.
> >>
> >> I'm so happy for you, and this is relevent, how?
> >
> > If, rather than looking at the pretty and glossy styles and themes,
> > focus was on how quicker things can be done with Linux, that would
> > interest me a lot more.
>
> That, of course, is a different subject all together and not actually what
> is being discussed in this thread.
Why is it a different subject? The discussion is about the OP (you)
mentioning of some reasons of moving to Linux (more whining about
Windows...dont like it dont use it). So why exactly can you talk about
something that you like/dislike and I cannot? Does the 1st ammendment
apply to only you?
>
> >
> >>
> >> > Yes, I have noticed the differences mentioned here but I just dont
> >> > care.
> >>
> >> Then why are you here?
> >
> > To see what distributions are being advocated here and whether or not
> > some of my new users can adopt those distributions (e.g. PCLinuxOS).
>
> This is probably the worst place for this. Yes, you can pick up the distros
> that are being discussed, but there be dragons.
Yes, you are right. So, whats the point? I can filter out the
discussions to my advantage. Isnt that hard. There are way too many
distro's already. A few discussed here doesnt hurt me any.
> Go to the sites of the various Linux distributions and download their
> propaganda and do your pros/cons evaluation from that.
Those talk about their distribution only, without comparison to other
distributions. Users matter the most. Here, there are advanced and avid
users. Some sticking to the distribution of their choice - others using
multiple distributions. This is an ideal place to know the perspective
of advanced users (after filteration, of course). What you suggested, I
have already tried.
> > Again the differences mentioned *here* didnt help
> > me.
>
> It wasn't meant to help *you*
So who exactly was all this for? Who was the OP (you) trying to help?
mlw
Because this thread was started as a discussion of "what is" not of "why."
> The discussion is about the OP (you)
> mentioning of some reasons of moving to Linux (more whining about
> Windows...dont like it dont use it). So why exactly can you talk about
> something that you like/dislike and I cannot? Does the 1st ammendment
> apply to only you?
You can talk all you want about anything, just don't yell fire in a movie
house, but, you can't honestly say "why aren't you talking about XYZ" when
the current discussion is "ABC." If you want to discuss something
different, simply post what you want to discuss in a new thread.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Yes, I have noticed the differences mentioned here but I just dont
>> >> > care.
>> >>
>> >> Then why are you here?
>> >
>> > To see what distributions are being advocated here and whether or not
>> > some of my new users can adopt those distributions (e.g. PCLinuxOS).
>>
>> This is probably the worst place for this. Yes, you can pick up the
>> distros that are being discussed, but there be dragons.
>
> Yes, you are right. So, whats the point? I can filter out the
> discussions to my advantage. Isnt that hard. There are way too many
> distro's already. A few discussed here doesnt hurt me any.
>
>> Go to the sites of the various Linux distributions and download their
>> propaganda and do your pros/cons evaluation from that.
>
> Those talk about their distribution only, without comparison to other
> distributions. Users matter the most. Here, there are advanced and avid
> users. Some sticking to the distribution of their choice - others using
> multiple distributions. This is an ideal place to know the perspective
> of advanced users (after filteration, of course). What you suggested, I
> have already tried.
Well, if you want to be here, accept what it is, It has been like this for
years and it isn't going to change. With a few exceptions, I am one of the
more reasonable people who post periodically.
>
>> > Again the differences mentioned *here* didnt help
>> > me.
>>
>> It wasn't meant to help *you*
>
> So who exactly was all this for? Who was the OP (you) trying to help?
What do you mean "help?" This is not a support forum. This is a new group
for debating various pros and cons of Linux.
It can be argued that only through debate is knowledge gained, and as such,
gaining knowledge is in itself a benefit. And doing something that
effectively benefits others is sometimes considered helping, thus I may be
helping. :-)
Chirag Shukla
mlw: "Why the hell do I still have to reboot every time I install a new
program or
update? "
me: Cant believe you asked that bubble-gum question about *.exe!
mlw: Why?
me: Yes, I have noticed the differences mentioned here but I just dont
care
mlw: Then why are you here?
Plain and clear - you are not reasonable here. Just playing your own
drums.
> > The discussion is about the OP (you)
> > mentioning of some reasons of moving to Linux (more whining about
> > Windows...dont like it dont use it). So why exactly can you talk about
> > something that you like/dislike and I cannot? Does the 1st ammendment
> > apply to only you?
>
> You can talk all you want about anything, just don't yell fire in a movie
> house
Are you reading correctly what I am writing or are you having big time
troubles? I am not asking you to write what I want to hear. I am
telling you that what is being written here doesnt help me much.
> but, you can't honestly say "why aren't you talking about XYZ" when
> the current discussion is "ABC."
You just seem to be talking all you want and when someone else does,
you just want to go ahead with your 1st ammendment dance. Deal with it.
I think we both are on topic. If you dont think so, I dont care.
> >> >> > Yes, I have noticed the differences mentioned here but I just dont
> >> >> > care.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then why are you here?
> >> >
> >> > To see what distributions are being advocated here and whether or not
> >> > some of my new users can adopt those distributions (e.g. PCLinuxOS).
> >>
> >> This is probably the worst place for this. Yes, you can pick up the
> >> distros that are being discussed, but there be dragons.
> >
> > Yes, you are right. So, whats the point? I can filter out the
> > discussions to my advantage. Isnt that hard. There are way too many
> > distro's already. A few discussed here doesnt hurt me any.
> >
> >> Go to the sites of the various Linux distributions and download their
> >> propaganda and do your pros/cons evaluation from that.
> >
> > Those talk about their distribution only, without comparison to other
> > distributions. Users matter the most. Here, there are advanced and avid
> > users. Some sticking to the distribution of their choice - others using
> > multiple distributions. This is an ideal place to know the perspective
> > of advanced users (after filteration, of course). What you suggested, I
> > have already tried.
>
> Well, if you want to be here, accept what it is, It has been like this for
> years and it isn't going to change.
I am not here to change anything either, if you didnt get it.
> With a few exceptions, I am one of the
> more reasonable people who post periodically.
Yes, you are reasonable in several posts. In this discussion with me,
you dont sound reasonable to me.
> >> > Again the differences mentioned *here* didnt help
> >> > me.
> >>
> >> It wasn't meant to help *you*
> >
> > So who exactly was all this for? Who was the OP (you) trying to help?
>
> What do you mean "help?"
What did you mean by "help" in "It wasn't meant to help *you*" with an
emphasis on *you*? You are trying to divert the topic. You clearly
meant that this topic was not for me in any way - and I ask you - who
was this topic meant for?
> This is not a support forum. This is a new group
> for debating various pros and cons of Linux.
I didnt ask for support, did I? I am seeing what this group is about,
so there is no need to teach me what this group is about. I read the
debates here and do some heavy filtering to my advantage.
> It can be argued that only through debate is knowledge gained, and as such,
> gaining knowledge is in itself a benefit.
I agree, but will edit -- "through sensible debate"
> And doing something that
> effectively benefits others is sometimes considered helping, thus I may be
> helping. :-)
You do help directly or indirectly, and that is not support. There are
added benefits to sharing thoughts, but pointing out that this topic is
not for me makes me feel that I shouldnt read your debates at all. And
maybe I wont.
Mark Kent
Linonut <lin...@bone.com> espoused:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, flatfish belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> I scored him down, but I think it's important for others to realzie what
>> he is up to.
>>
>> IOW he is duping the Linux advocates big time and most of them still have
>> not figured it out.
>
> What, do the URLs he posts go through his site?
>
They do provide a very useful counter to the trolls, who otherwise fill
this group with OT material.
I think Roy C's recent stats would show that on topic posts are now
something like 70%+ (I'm gestimating), whereas previously, the trolls
had kept it down to, at times, less than 50%.
As you can see from the interchange between flatty and dfs, Roy S is
definitely doing the right thing.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
VMS must die!
Mark Kent
Da'Punk-A <dap...@googlemail.com> espoused:
>
> BearItAll wrote:
>
>>
>> I have tried in the past to group users menus into functional groups. It
>> seems ok until you add another program that needs menu access. Some do it
>> correctly, asking where it should put the menu item, others assume a
>> certain layering of the menu tree and fail completely, one even crashed the
>> system. Crashed system on a menu edit? Does that mean the menu is in the
>> kernel? No and yes, MS Win doesn't really have a kernel as such so I'm
>> afraid actions like this can crash it.
>
> What /is/ it about Windows that makes it crash so much? I have a
> pretty slow internet connection at home, so I tend to use Windows boxes
> at the local library and community centre a fair bit. I've been using
> Ubuntu Linux at home for 4 months now, and occasionally an application
> will crash, but never the whole computer. Yet the machines at the
> library and the community centre, all running XP, seem to crash a fair
> bit - not just an app failing, but the whole system biting the dust.
> And a friend of mine, who unfortunately is a gaming freak and refuses
> to even consider Linux until all his fave games will run natively -
> he's always complaining about frequent Windows crashes.
Unfortunately, you're never going to win over someone in that situation,
because as time goes on, he'll pick a new game which he likes which is
windows only, and the developers will say that there's no demand for
linux versions, and so it will continue.
>
> I know that the MS apologists will denounce this as a lintard lie. But
> it happens. Before I started using Linux, I thought it was /normal/
> for computers to do this. How sad is that - Microsoft has such a hold
> on the minds of consumers, that Windows == Computers, and Windows'
> failures are seen as standard.
>
The first two things I noticed about debian when I first got it (long
long ago) was the dpkg database which knew what every single file or
object was for (except users', of course), and that it didn't crash. At
all. Of course, linux has moved on hugely in the last 10 years, so
there are many other reasons for wanting it than just those two.
Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! At Raceway Speedway!
> Unfortunately, you're never going to win over someone in that situation,
> because as time goes on, he'll pick a new game which he likes which is
> windows only, and the developers will say that there's no demand for
> linux versions, and so it will continue.
Many game developers are using standard API's such as SDL and now I see
that NCSoft (Auto Assault, City of Villians) and others are licensing
the UT2004 gaming engine, which runs in Linux in the UT2004 mode.
So, it's like the development argument in general. The newere platforms
(.Net, J2EE) are inherently cross platform.
Paul
> On 2006-07-11, Paul <uku...@localhost.com> wrote:
>> Have you ever noticed how Linux doesn't show 50% (or more) of the
>> installed programs on the start menu?
>
> Well, from what I've seen, the ones it "doesn't show" are mostly
> command-line programs (e.g. sed) that make no sense to run from a menu.
Same with Windows - which was the point I was repling to.
>
> What amazes *me* about Windows is how the 'hide programs that haven't
> been used in a while' system works. Here's what appears to be the
> algorithm:
>
> 1. When a program is used, update a record of when it was used.
> 2. When building the menu, check the record.
> a. If it was recently used, show it.
> b. If it was used, but not recently, hide it.
> c. If it has no use record, show it.
Fortunately that system seems to of died with Windows ME. The Add/Remove
control panel still seems to have no idea what the hell is going on though
and still insists that applications like Anti-Virus (auto run at start up)
are used "infrequently"
>
> This has the result that programs that you use frequently show up on
> the menu. Yippee. But (c) means that programs you have *never* used show
> up, too. And programs that you *have* used, but not in a while, get
> hidden.
>
> So, programs that you've actually used are *less* visible than ones
> you've never used. How does this *possibly* make sense? >
Same idea used in KDEs "Most Used Applications" area on the K Menu I
guess.....
Paul
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Have you ever noticed how Linux doesn't show 50% (or more) of the
>> installed programs on the start menu? And with both KDE and Gnome you
>> really have to look through the items/menus to find what you want until
>> you get used to where the items are...
>
> Not like Windows, eh?
>
>>> Did you ever notice that the start button menu takes up a large portion
>>> of the screen?
>>
>> Did you ever notice how HUGE the taskbar is on KDE? or that Gnome as TWO
>> bars taking up screen area.
>
> Didja ever notice you can get rid of them if you want to?
Didja ever notice you can get rid of the taskbar in Windows too?
>
....
>> Can you tell me why I need to reboot Linux after I've updated the kernel?
>> I'd of thought that in this day and age there would be no need to reboot
>> just to update a few files....
>
> Who's the prat now? Hypocrite.
Lol.
Paul
If you read my post properly you'd see I was replying to a post that
suggested that *only* Windows hides programs.
Jim
I have that set to 20. Hasn't filled up yet, and I've not had to dip into
the tree menu for a couple days now.
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Some people are like Slinkies;
They serve no particular purpose,
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.
Ray Ingles
the salient point. I do not believe that I have altered his meaning
in any substantive way (else I would not have done it) but feel free
to look at the original context if there's any concern.]
On 2006-07-11, Paul <uku...@localhost.com> wrote:
>> So, programs that you've actually used are *less* visible than ones
>> you've never used. How does this *possibly* make sense?
> Fortunately that system seems to of died with Windows ME.
I was describing Windows XP. Seems *very much* alive. For example,
I don't have much time to play games. My birthday was Sunday, so I
actually played a couple I haven't touched in a while, including a
couple Windows games.
For some of the games, I could go to their submenu, and the only
thing hidden would be the actual game; the other entries in that
submenu, like, e.g., the uninstall option (which I pretty obviously
haven't ever run) were visible.
Sure, I haven't run the game in a while. Okay, fine. But why the $&#*
would you preferentially hide something that I have actually run at
some point, but *keep* things I have *never run, ever*? Again, how does
this *possibly* make sense?
> Same idea used in KDEs "Most Used Applications" area on the K Menu I
> guess.....
I've never seen it work like *that*.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I can't think of a worse way to wake up than discovering
my head is in a jar." - Tagon
"Try waking up with your head in a jar and having deja-vu."
- Der Trihs.
- Schlock Mercenary, http://www.schlockmercenary.com/
Paul
> [Note, I edited Paul's response slightly, moving his reply down below
> the salient point. I do not believe that I have altered his meaning
> in any substantive way (else I would not have done it) but feel free
> to look at the original context if there's any concern.]
>
> On 2006-07-11, Paul <uku...@localhost.com> wrote:
>
>>> So, programs that you've actually used are *less* visible than ones
>>> you've never used. How does this *possibly* make sense?
>
>> Fortunately that system seems to of died with Windows ME.
>
> I was describing Windows XP. Seems *very much* alive. For example,
> I don't have much time to play games. My birthday was Sunday, so I
> actually played a couple I haven't touched in a while, including a
> couple Windows games.
>
> For some of the games, I could go to their submenu, and the only
> thing hidden would be the actual game; the other entries in that
> submenu, like, e.g., the uninstall option (which I pretty obviously
> haven't ever run) were visible.
>
> Sure, I haven't run the game in a while. Okay, fine. But why the $&#*
> would you preferentially hide something that I have actually run at
> some point, but *keep* things I have *never run, ever*? Again, how does
> this *possibly* make sense?
*Shrugs* - No idea, I've never seen auto-hiding on XP's start menus.
>
>> Same idea used in KDEs "Most Used Applications" area on the K Menu I
>> guess.....
>
> I've never seen it work like *that*.
>
I have. I've ran SwiftFox many times over the last few days, certainly a lot
more than I have ran aMule, yet aMule is currently at the bottom of the
Mose Used are and Swiftfox is nowhere to be seen. Annoyingly I can't right
click and remove an entry from the Most Used area on KDE like I can on XP.
Ray Ingles
>> Sure, I haven't run the game in a while. Okay, fine. But why the $&#*
>> would you preferentially hide something that I have actually run at
>> some point, but *keep* things I have *never run, ever*? Again, how does
>> this *possibly* make sense?
>
> *Shrugs* - No idea, I've never seen auto-hiding on XP's start menus.
Both at work and at home, *I've* sure seen it. Perhaps my usage pattern
is wildly aberrant, but somehow I doubt that.
Ah! I see after a bit of Googling... it's because I use the "classic"
menu style. They did get rid of that crap in XP after all, at least the
default style.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods
or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson
T.G.Reaper
wrote:
>First is the fact that everything in XP is visible. So actions by a user,
>application, browser etc all have full access. You can of cause have your
>users as 'user' rather than administrator levels, but the settings they
>have chosen for this are so limiting that no one bothers with it.
Please explain exactly why you can't routinely log on as a user
without admin privileges and successfully accomplish normal everyday
tasks in Windows XP. I've been doing exactly that for years.
> Is that
>MS's fault? Yes, they could either have gone for a more sensible 'user'
>level, or given accessibility options at the time the user is created. Why
>didn't they do this? Well it turns out they couldn't, there aren't any
>levels in there, there isn't any separation. You either have all rights or
>almost none.
LOL, you've got it backwards here, Linux is the OS where you either
have root privileges or you're exactly the same as everyone else.
Windows OTOH, by default has several different levels of users: Admin,
User, PowerUser, BackupOperator, Internet_Guest, just to name a few.
Each of these has varying degrees of privileges, wrt what they are
allowed/forbidden to do. If none of the predefined groups fits your
needs, you can define a new user (group) type and give them the exact
subset of Admin privileges that are needed.
There are areas where Linux is better than Windows, but Access control
and granularity of user privileges is *not* one of them.
>Then there is the memory fault. It has been in Windows since the very
>beginning. It claims small amounts of memory and never gives it back, so
>eventually you run out of ram and it crashes.
Really...? And how long does this take? Auth1 is a Windows 2000 server
on my local LAN every few minutes it runs the "uptime" command and
writes the result to disk, here is the output of the last execution of
that command:
\\Auth1 has been up for: 244 day(s), 17 hour(s), 49 minute(s), 36
second(s)
> so in a normal evening on a
>home PC the bug probably wouldn't be seen. But it is there. NT people have
>to take their server down at regular intervals depending on how busy the
>server is.
Sorry, this just isn't true, what you describe is called a memory
leak, and even a casual tracking of memory usage over time would
quickly reveal the existence of such a fault. The fact is that no such
fault exists.
--
Regards,
T.G. Reaper
Peter Köhlmann
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:05:28 +0100, BearItAll <sp...@rassler.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>First is the fact that everything in XP is visible. So actions by a user,
>>application, browser etc all have full access. You can of cause have your
>>users as 'user' rather than administrator levels, but the settings they
>>have chosen for this are so limiting that no one bothers with it.
>
> Please explain exactly why you can't routinely log on as a user
> without admin privileges and successfully accomplish normal everyday
> tasks in Windows XP. I've been doing exactly that for years.
>
Certainly. That simply *has* to be the reason MS now promises to do it right
in Shorthorn MCD this time (which is just as empty as previous promises)
In short: Working as a restricted user is a horrible PITA on XP, and
especially MS-apps are prone to get it totally wrong
Tell us, TeeGee, how will you start the (MS-supplied) anti-virus in Vista
when logged on as a normal user without knowledge of the admin-password
(hint: you can't, making the whole distinction between admin/user a
complete riot)
But then, we know from whome these claims are coming: From TeeGee,
the "security expert". Who could not crack the linux-system he was so much
after, even with the explicit help of his "victim"
--
To start your shiny new Pentium IV in Gameboy mode just enter
C:\win
T.G.Reaper
<peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>T.G.Reaper wrote:
>> Please explain exactly why you can't routinely log on as a user
>> without admin privileges and successfully accomplish normal everyday
>> tasks in Windows XP. I've been doing exactly that for years.
>>
>
>Certainly. That simply *has* to be the reason MS now promises to do it right
>in Shorthorn MCD this time (which is just as empty as previous promises)
>In short: Working as a restricted user is a horrible PITA on XP, and
>especially MS-apps are prone to get it totally wrong
Everone *says* it's a horrible PITA on XP, but nobody can ever
actually point to specific examples of routine tasks that can't be
done by a regular user, and can't be executed with RunAs.
How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
>Tell us, TeeGee, how will you start the (MS-supplied) anti-virus in Vista
>when logged on as a normal user without knowledge of the admin-password.
I don't know, and I don't really care, if you routinely log on as a
regular user, Anti-virus software isn't really necessary, so I don't
consider this to actually be any kind of an issue at all.
(Note to self: Uninstall AV software from Vista beta next boot)
Now back to my original question, care to provide a specific concrete
example of why it's not feasible/practical to log on as a regular user
under XP?
>(hint: you can't, making the whole distinction between admin/user a
>complete riot)
If you don't have the admin/root password there are a lot of things
you can't do in Linux, you don't seem to have any point here Peter.
>But then, we know from whome these claims are coming: From TeeGee,
>the "security expert". Who could not crack the linux-system he was so much
>after, even with the explicit help of his "victim"
I'm not sure you want to keep bringing this up Pete, it's really
ancient history now, most normal people would have moved on by now.
Truth be told, it's not really a pro Linux argument, in fact it really
tends to support the premise that if Linux had as many users as
Windows, it would also have similar numbers of failures wrt to
security.
Think about it, I posted code that was clearly advertised as malicious
*and* required specific help from a human user in order to be
successful. You like to crow about the fact that the code did not
successfully compromise your personal system, but you gloss over the
fact that despite those two major hurdles it *did* still compromise
two systems, out less than a dozen who tried it.
What would the success rate have been if the code were "hidden" in
some downloadable app that promised to generate passwords for porn
sites, or promised to "take control" of a remote Windows machine, or
one, or all of dozens of other attractive/sexy promising utilities?
--
Regards,
T.G. Reaper
Peter Köhlmann
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:22:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>>> Please explain exactly why you can't routinely log on as a user
>>> without admin privileges and successfully accomplish normal everyday
>>> tasks in Windows XP. I've been doing exactly that for years.
>>>
>>
>>Certainly. That simply *has* to be the reason MS now promises to do it
>>right in Shorthorn MCD this time (which is just as empty as previous
>>promises) In short: Working as a restricted user is a horrible PITA on XP,
>>and especially MS-apps are prone to get it totally wrong
>
> Everone *says* it's a horrible PITA on XP, but nobody can ever
> actually point to specific examples of routine tasks that can't be
> done by a regular user, and can't be executed with RunAs.
>
> How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
> it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
>
You know as well as anybody else that this is the case, and that especially
for MS apps you have to go through quite some hoops to get them
behaving "acceptable" as restricted user.
>
>>Tell us, TeeGee, how will you start the (MS-supplied) anti-virus in Vista
>>when logged on as a normal user without knowledge of the admin-password.
>
> I don't know, and I don't really care, if you routinely log on as a
> regular user, Anti-virus software isn't really necessary, so I don't
> consider this to actually be any kind of an issue at all.
>
> (Note to self: Uninstall AV software from Vista beta next boot)
Interesting how you simply define AV software as "unneeded".
It seems that MS thinks different
>
> Now back to my original question, care to provide a specific concrete
> example of why it's not feasible/practical to log on as a regular user
> under XP?
>
Now back to the question, TeeGee: How do you suppose a normal user should be
able to work "normally" in XP, when MS hasn't even got it working
acceptably in Vista?
Do you really think anybody will buy your outright lies regarding "working
normally as restricted user" in XP, when even its "successor" Shorthorn MCD
has not got it halfway "right"?
>>(hint: you can't, making the whole distinction between admin/user a
>>complete riot)
>
> If you don't have the admin/root password there are a lot of things
> you can't do in Linux, you don't seem to have any point here Peter.
>
Tell us, TeeGee, what kind of things you can't do as normal user in linux. I
am sure you can come up with lots of stuff any normal user absolutely has
to do, daily or even by the hour and needs root rights for it. Come up with
those examples.
As usual, you pull crap out of your ass
Come on, tell us how incompetent those monkeys at MS have to be to implement
a service such as AV software in this way, which is started at boot time
and needs admin rights. They have to be nearly as incompetent as you are to
come up with a such utterly idiotic scheme
In fact, those pop-ups come with such frequency in vista that after at most
three days every user will work as admin from then on to avoid this typical
MS idiocy. Making Vista as vulnerable as XP. But then, vista is just SP3
for XP, nothing else
>>But then, we know from whome these claims are coming: From TeeGee,
>>the "security expert". Who could not crack the linux-system he was so much
>>after, even with the explicit help of his "victim"
>
> I'm not sure you want to keep bringing this up Pete, it's really
> ancient history now, most normal people would have moved on by now.
No, it is not ancient. It shows what kind of idiotic twit you are
You are not just incompetent in anything regarding security, you are a
dishonest twit. That thread should be brought to everybodies attention
every time you care to wite "security". You have absolutely no clue
what "security" means
And, BTW, I have not allowed you to mangle my name
> Truth be told, it's not really a pro Linux argument, in fact it really
> tends to support the premise that if Linux had as many users as
> Windows, it would also have similar numbers of failures wrt to
> security.
>
See? You simply assert such dumb claims. Without the tiniest shred of
evidence for it.
Come on, TeeGee-twit, show us the implementation of the "exec-bit" in
windows. Which alone would make a world of difference security-wise
This single differnce between linux and windows will preclude 99% of malware
from the start in linux. Now please explain how this will make no
differnece regarding your claim that
"it really tends to support the premise that if Linux had as many users as
Windows, it would also have similar numbers of failures wrt to security"
> Think about it, I posted code that was clearly advertised as malicious
> *and* required specific help from a human user in order to be
> successful.
Yup. Otherwise it would not even have been able to start. Has anybody ever
told you what the "exec-bit" in linux systems means, TeeGee?
Tell us how this fact, that the user had to go through some hoops, supports
your claim that
"it really tends to support the premise that if Linux had as many users as
Windows, it would also have similar numbers of failures wrt to security"
I am sure you will come up with an explanation which is nearly as idiotic as
those coming from Erik F
> You like to crow about the fact that the code did not
> successfully compromise your personal system, but you gloss over the
> fact that despite those two major hurdles it *did* still compromise
> two systems, out less than a dozen who tried it.
You try to gloss over the fact that this code was done to compromise *my*
systems, especially mine. After all, I accepted your challenge. You failed
utterly. All you could demonstrate was that even with the willing help of
the users you could get at just some systems, although you used a known
exploit. In fact, you have shown that linux is much more secure than
windows, no matter how you try to twist the results
>
> What would the success rate have been if the code were "hidden" in
> some downloadable app that promised to generate passwords for porn
> sites, or promised to "take control" of a remote Windows machine, or
> one, or all of dozens of other attractive/sexy promising utilities?
>
Exactly the same, TeeGee. Or why do you suppose that some "hidden" code
would fare different than your "open" code which needed the willing help of
users to achieve very little?
Is your mysterious "hidden" code by some magic more powerful
than "non-hidden" code? Has Billy-boy cast some spell on that "hiden" code?
Or is this your way of telling us that you are indeed still that
incompetent twit you always were?
--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
T.G.Reaper
<peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
>> it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
>>
>
>You know as well as anybody else that this is the case, and that especially
>for MS apps you have to go through quite some hoops to get them
>behaving "acceptable" as restricted user.
No, I don't know this, in fact I routinely use several Windows systems
without admin privileges. That's why I asked for specific examples,
and it should be noted that you provided zero.
>> I don't know, and I don't really care, if you routinely log on as a
>> regular user, Anti-virus software isn't really necessary, so I don't
>> consider this to actually be any kind of an issue at all.
>>
>> (Note to self: Uninstall AV software from Vista beta next boot)
>
>Interesting how you simply define AV software as "unneeded".
>It seems that MS thinks different
>
I don't care what MS thinks, they aren't responsible for my systems I
am.
>>
>> Now back to my original question, care to provide a specific concrete
>> example of why it's not feasible/practical to log on as a regular user
>> under XP?
>>
>Now back to the question, TeeGee: How do you suppose a normal user should be
>able to work "normally" in XP,
The same way I and lots of other people do, that is just work. It is
again worth noting that you have still not provided a single specific
example demonstrating that using Windows XP as a regular user is
impractical.
> when MS hasn't even got it working
>acceptably in Vista?
Most people aren't using Vista, it's a beta OS, whether it's working
"acceptably" or not is mostly irrelevant.
>Do you really think anybody will buy your outright lies regarding "working
>normally as restricted user" in XP,
It doesn't require that anybody take my word for it, it's trivial to
verify for any one with access to an XP machine. Conversely, if you're
correct and it is difficult to perform routine tasks under XP as a
normal user, then it should be quite easy for you to come up with a
few specific examples demonstrating why it's such a "PITA," so it
seems strange that you haven't been able to provide eve one.
>when even its "successor" Shorthorn MCD
>has not got it halfway "right"?
>
>>>(hint: you can't, making the whole distinction between admin/user a
>>>complete riot)
>>
>> If you don't have the admin/root password there are a lot of things
>> you can't do in Linux, you don't seem to have any point here Peter.
>>
>
>Tell us, TeeGee, what kind of things you can't do as normal user in linux. I
>am sure you can come up with lots of stuff any normal user absolutely has
>to do, daily or even by the hour and needs root rights for it. Come up with
>those examples.
At some point, it would probably be a good idea to update the system,
last I checked "emerge --UDa world" doesn't work without root
privileges.
>>>But then, we know from whome these claims are coming: From TeeGee,
>>>the "security expert". Who could not crack the linux-system he was so much
>>>after, even with the explicit help of his "victim"
>>
>> I'm not sure you want to keep bringing this up Pete, it's really
>> ancient history now, most normal people would have moved on by now.
>
>No, it is not ancient. It shows what kind of idiotic twit you are
>You are not just incompetent in anything regarding security, you are a
>dishonest twit. That thread should be brought to everybodies attention
>every time you care to wite "security". You have absolutely no clue
>what "security" means
As you wish, but like I said, examined objectively and as a whole it's
not really all that pro Linux.
>And, BTW, I have not allowed you to mangle my name
Chill Pete...or is that Petey...LOL
>
>> Truth be told, it's not really a pro Linux argument, in fact it really
>> tends to support the premise that if Linux had as many users as
>> Windows, it would also have similar numbers of failures wrt to
>> security.
>>
>See? You simply assert such dumb claims. Without the tiniest shred of
>evidence for it.
See below.
>> Think about it, I posted code that was clearly advertised as malicious
>> *and* required specific help from a human user in order to be
>> successful.
>
>Yup. Otherwise it would not even have been able to start. Has anybody ever
>told you what the "exec-bit" in linux systems means, TeeGee?
I run Linux PeteBoy, I know exactly what the exec bit is.
>Tell us how this fact, that the user had to go through some hoops, supports
>your claim that
>"it really tends to support the premise that if Linux had as many users as
>Windows, it would also have similar numbers of failures wrt to security"
Because my dear dense Petey, even though the app was clearly marked
and advertised as malicious, two out of 10 (or so) who were vulnerable
to the chosen exploit were willing to flip that exec bit. Now
Petesy-wetesy you need to put on your thinking cap and consider what
might happen if Linux had as many users as Windows, and that little
exploit app promised free porn, or access to government computers, or
<insert seductive promise here>. Then how many users might flip that
exec bit, huh Petesy?
>You try to gloss over the fact that this code was done to compromise *my*
>systems, especially mine. After all, I accepted your challenge. You failed
>utterly. All you could demonstrate was that even with the willing help of
>the users you could get at just some systems, although you used a known
>exploit.
Exactly, thank you Pete, that's exactly my point, even though the
exploit was clearly malicious, and required help from the user and
used an exploit which had already been patched, it still compromised
systems. Now lets change just one of those variables so that instead
of being clearly advertised as malicious, the app is falsely
portrayed as providing some desirable feature or service, what happens
then Petester do more Linux users flip that exec bit or less?
>>
>> What would the success rate have been if the code were "hidden" in
>> some downloadable app that promised to generate passwords for porn
>> sites, or promised to "take control" of a remote Windows machine, or
>> one, or all of dozens of other attractive/sexy promising utilities?
>>
>
>Exactly the same, TeeGee.
If you believe that Pete, you're a moron.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
William Poaster
<snip>
Huh, "The Grim Reaper" is back with his usual bullshit.
/.me forgot to add leafnode filter SuSE 10.0...that's now corrected.
--
Disk full - remove Windows?
Y - Yes!
F - FFS YES!
mlw
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:22:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>>> Please explain exactly why you can't routinely log on as a user
>>> without admin privileges and successfully accomplish normal everyday
>>> tasks in Windows XP. I've been doing exactly that for years.
>>>
>>
>>Certainly. That simply *has* to be the reason MS now promises to do it
>>right in Shorthorn MCD this time (which is just as empty as previous
>>promises) In short: Working as a restricted user is a horrible PITA on XP,
>>and especially MS-apps are prone to get it totally wrong
>
> Everone *says* it's a horrible PITA on XP, but nobody can ever
> actually point to specific examples of routine tasks that can't be
> done by a regular user, and can't be executed with RunAs.
>
> How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
> it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
I did see a Panasonic MP3 player at my local megamart that required "Super
User" access to use. AFAICR you could not debug a program without them.
>
>
>>Tell us, TeeGee, how will you start the (MS-supplied) anti-virus in Vista
>>when logged on as a normal user without knowledge of the admin-password.
>
> I don't know, and I don't really care, if you routinely log on as a
> regular user, Anti-virus software isn't really necessary, so I don't
> consider this to actually be any kind of an issue at all.
*you* not really caring does not mean it is not an important question, the
answer to which illustrates the point being made.
>
> (Note to self: Uninstall AV software from Vista beta next boot)
>
> Now back to my original question, care to provide a specific concrete
> example of why it's not feasible/practical to log on as a regular user
> under XP?
Um, running AV software? Which you need to do for windows macro
vulnerabilities.
>
>
>>(hint: you can't, making the whole distinction between admin/user a
>>complete riot)
>
> If you don't have the admin/root password there are a lot of things
> you can't do in Linux, you don't seem to have any point here Peter.
Yes, but the point, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that Windows is not
easily usable without root/admin privileges where as a Linux box is.
>
>>But then, we know from whome these claims are coming: From TeeGee,
>>the "security expert". Who could not crack the linux-system he was so much
>>after, even with the explicit help of his "victim"
>
> I'm not sure you want to keep bringing this up Pete, it's really
> ancient history now, most normal people would have moved on by now.
> Truth be told, it's not really a pro Linux argument, in fact it really
> tends to support the premise that if Linux had as many users as
> Windows, it would also have similar numbers of failures wrt to
> security.
The fact that you couldn't breach security on a Linux box some how indicates
that it is just as insecure as Windows, what sort of leap of logic is that?
>
> Think about it, I posted code that was clearly advertised as malicious
> *and* required specific help from a human user in order to be
> successful.
Like WGA.
> You like to crow about the fact that the code did not
> successfully compromise your personal system, but you gloss over the
> fact that despite those two major hurdles it *did* still compromise
> two systems, out less than a dozen who tried it.
That is more of a sociological experiment. It has nothing to do with
security computer security, it has to do with the stupidity of fools.
>
> What would the success rate have been if the code were "hidden" in
> some downloadable app that promised to generate passwords for porn
> sites, or promised to "take control" of a remote Windows machine, or
> one, or all of dozens of other attractive/sexy promising utilities?
What would the success be if it came from Microsoft and promised more
software updates?
If you convince a user to do something that is not exploiting a hole in
computer security, they is exploiting stupidity in the userbase. Being
Windows users, that's a pretty big exploit.
Peter Köhlmann
> It was on Friday 14 July 2006 10:29 am, that T.G.Reaper apparently said:
>
> <snip>
>
> Huh, "The Grim Reaper" is back with his usual bullshit.
> /.me forgot to add leafnode filter SuSE 10.0...that's now corrected.
>
Things must be pretty bad at One Microsoft Way when lying assholes like
TeeGee are ordered back into cola
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
chrisv
>William Poaster wrote:
>
>> It was on Friday 14 July 2006 10:29 am, that T.G.Reaper apparently said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Huh, "The Grim Reaper" is back with his usual bullshit.
>> /.me forgot to add leafnode filter SuSE 10.0...that's now corrected.
>>
>
>Things must be pretty bad at One Microsoft Way when lying assholes like
>TeeGee are ordered back into cola
? Aren't all Wintrolls lying assholes?
Sinister Midget
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> It was on Friday 14 July 2006 10:29 am, that T.G.Reaper apparently said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Huh, "The Grim Reaper" is back with his usual bullshit.
>> /.me forgot to add leafnode filter SuSE 10.0...that's now corrected.
>>
>
> Things must be pretty bad at One Microsoft Way when lying assholes like
> TeeGee are ordered back into cola
What's left? I don't see they have any choice. Anybody with talent has
already bailed by all appearances.
Maybe this explains why the troll quality has fallen off in recent
years. Perhaps they saw the writing on the wall earlier than most and
started jumping ship while the gettin' was good, and while they still
had a pension plan.
--
Windows hasn't increased computer literacy. It just lowered the
standard.
T.G.Reaper
>T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>>>
>> How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
>> it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
>
>I did see a Panasonic MP3 player at my local megamart that required "Super
>User" access to use. AFAICR you could not debug a program without them.
My MP3 player just shows up as a another drive letter that you can
copy files to/from, or you can even have MediaPlayer rip CDs to it
automatically. If the Panasonic unit actually requires a
dedicated/special app that insists on Admin privileges, I don't see
any reason why you couldn't execute it with RunAs.
>>>Tell us, TeeGee, how will you start the (MS-supplied) anti-virus in Vista
>>>when logged on as a normal user without knowledge of the admin-password.
>>
>> I don't know, and I don't really care, if you routinely log on as a
>> regular user, Anti-virus software isn't really necessary, so I don't
>> consider this to actually be any kind of an issue at all.
>
>*you* not really caring does not mean it is not an important question, the
>answer to which illustrates the point being made.
The question was about Vista, a beta OS that isn't being used yet, the
answer is irrelevant to 99.999% of the users.
>> (Note to self: Uninstall AV software from Vista beta next boot)
>>
>> Now back to my original question, care to provide a specific concrete
>> example of why it's not feasible/practical to log on as a regular user
>> under XP?
>
>Um, running AV software? Which you need to do for windows macro
>vulnerabilities.
I don't receive/open a lot of macro capable documents to begin with,
and the small threat they pose to regular user can be easily addressed
by a simple routine data backups which is something that should be
done anyway. Such macros can't install system level software such as
key loggers, or root kits. In most cases it's unlikely that any such
malicious code would even be able to survive a simple reboot. All in
all I don't see the meager benefits of running AV software are even
close to being worth the resources and intrusiveness of most AV
software.
>>>(hint: you can't, making the whole distinction between admin/user a
>>>complete riot)
>>
>> If you don't have the admin/root password there are a lot of things
>> you can't do in Linux, you don't seem to have any point here Peter.
>
>Yes, but the point, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that Windows is not
>easily usable without root/admin privileges where as a Linux box is.
I know that there are some games that require Admin access to play,
but frankly that's not the fault of Windows, it's poorly designed
software on the part of the vendor. Responsible users should avoid
such apps or at the very least complain/suggest that the vendor fix
the app so that future versions do not require Admin privileges.
>
>The fact that you couldn't breach security on a Linux box some how indicates
>that it is just as insecure as Windows, what sort of leap of logic is that?
See below.
>>
>> Think about it, I posted code that was clearly advertised as malicious
>> *and* required specific help from a human user in order to be
>> successful.
>
>Like WGA.
What's WGA? Are you referring to the "Windows Genuine Advantage"
notification update of a week or two ago? I read the EULA and found it
distasteful and declined the update. I'd recommend others do the same.
>> You like to crow about the fact that the code did not
>> successfully compromise your personal system, but you gloss over the
>> fact that despite those two major hurdles it *did* still compromise
>> two systems, out less than a dozen who tried it.
>
>That is more of a sociological experiment. It has nothing to do with
>security computer security, it has to do with the stupidity of fools.
I totally disagree, sociology and "social engineering" have very much
to do with computer security. Such "human vulnerabilities" greatly
affect Windows because it has such a large user base. If Linux had the
same number of users, it's silly to believe that it would not be
affected by this exact same dynamic.
>> What would the success rate have been if the code were "hidden" in
>> some downloadable app that promised to generate passwords for porn
>> sites, or promised to "take control" of a remote Windows machine, or
>> one, or all of dozens of other attractive/sexy promising utilities?
>
>What would the success be if it came from Microsoft and promised more
>software updates?
>
>If you convince a user to do something that is not exploiting a hole in
>computer security, they is exploiting stupidity in the userbase. Being
>Windows users, that's a pretty big exploit.
And if Linux had the same user base then the same would be true of
Linux users.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
T.G.Reaper
<peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>William Poaster wrote:
>
>> It was on Friday 14 July 2006 10:29 am, that T.G.Reaper apparently said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Huh, "The Grim Reaper" is back with his usual bullshit.
>> /.me forgot to add leafnode filter SuSE 10.0...that's now corrected.
>>
>
>Things must be pretty bad at One Microsoft Way when lying assholes like
>TeeGee are ordered back into cola
Actually, it's because I'm working from home for the next couple of
weeks due to a shattered heel bone (car hit me while I was riding my
bicycle).
Note to any objective readers: Notice how Peter started out trying to
debate the point, and now that he can't actually produce any
reasonable counter arguments or examples, he resorts to name calling
and unsupported accusations. Then other blind zealots like SM & WP
chime in for good measure with nothing particularly useful. Linux
advocacy as practiced by it's finest representives.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
Peter Köhlmann
Well, yes. But the grade of "lyingness" or being an "asshole" varies
TeeGee is about on a par with Erik F, meaning, you can't really go further
down
Other wintrolls are just extremely stupid, like DFS or tab
--
Ninety percent of the time things will turn out worse than you expect.
The other 10 percent of the time you had no right to expect so much.
Chirag Shukla
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:22:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> > <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> >>T.G.Reaper wrote:
> >
> >>> Please explain exactly why you can't routinely log on as a user
> >>> without admin privileges and successfully accomplish normal everyday
> >>> tasks in Windows XP. I've been doing exactly that for years.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Certainly. That simply *has* to be the reason MS now promises to do it
> >>right in Shorthorn MCD this time (which is just as empty as previous
> >>promises) In short: Working as a restricted user is a horrible PITA on XP,
> >>and especially MS-apps are prone to get it totally wrong
> >
> > Everone *says* it's a horrible PITA on XP, but nobody can ever
> > actually point to specific examples of routine tasks that can't be
> > done by a regular user, and can't be executed with RunAs.
> >
> > How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
> > it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
> >
>
> You know as well as anybody else that this is the case, and that especially
> for MS apps you have to go through quite some hoops to get them
> behaving "acceptable" as restricted user.
I would like to know what you mean by acceptable and what problem does
a regular user have running applications. Examples would help. At work,
each and every graduate student is a restricted user working under XP.
Zero complains, zero problems. They dont have any complains on Linux
either.
>
> >
> >>Tell us, TeeGee, how will you start the (MS-supplied) anti-virus in Vista
> >>when logged on as a normal user without knowledge of the admin-password.
> >
> > I don't know, and I don't really care, if you routinely log on as a
> > regular user, Anti-virus software isn't really necessary, so I don't
> > consider this to actually be any kind of an issue at all.
> >
> > (Note to self: Uninstall AV software from Vista beta next boot)
>
> Interesting how you simply define AV software as "unneeded".
> It seems that MS thinks different
>
> >
> > Now back to my original question, care to provide a specific concrete
> > example of why it's not feasible/practical to log on as a regular user
> > under XP?
> >
> Now back to the question, TeeGee: How do you suppose a normal user should be
> able to work "normally" in XP, when MS hasn't even got it working
> acceptably in Vista?
> Do you really think anybody will buy your outright lies regarding "working
> normally as restricted user" in XP, when even its "successor" Shorthorn MCD
> has not got it halfway "right"?
What is your user's "normal" work and what is preventing their "normal"
work under XP?
> >>(hint: you can't, making the whole distinction between admin/user a
> >>complete riot)
> >
> > If you don't have the admin/root password there are a lot of things
> > you can't do in Linux, you don't seem to have any point here Peter.
> >
T.G.: What is your user's "normal" work and what is preventing their
"normal" work under Linux (what distribution) ?
T.G.Reaper
<chiragsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> T.G.Reaper wrote:
>> > How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
>> > it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
>> >
>>
>> You know as well as anybody else that this is the case, and that especially
>> for MS apps you have to go through quite some hoops to get them
>> behaving "acceptable" as restricted user.
>
>I would like to know what you mean by acceptable and what problem does
>a regular user have running applications. Examples would help. At work,
>each and every graduate student is a restricted user working under XP.
>Zero complains, zero problems. They dont have any complains on Linux
>either.
I'd like to know as well, but Petey doesn't seem to have any examples
to provide.
>> > If you don't have the admin/root password there are a lot of things
>> > you can't do in Linux, you don't seem to have any point here Peter.
>> >
>
>T.G.: What is your user's "normal" work and what is preventing their
>"normal" work under Linux (what distribution) ?
I was thinking of a single user or family PC where the root/admin
password would be needed for occasional updates and maintenance, the
point being that this is true for either platform. Outside of that I
agree with you that the root/admin password isn't required for
"normal" day-day activity on *either* platform. It's Peter who insists
otherwise, yet he doesn't seem to be capable of explaining exactly
why.
--
Regards,
T.G. Reaper
Peter Köhlmann
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:02 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>William Poaster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It was on Friday 14 July 2006 10:29 am, that T.G.Reaper apparently
>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh, "The Grim Reaper" is back with his usual bullshit.
>>>>> /.me forgot to add leafnode filter SuSE 10.0...that's now corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Things must be pretty bad at One Microsoft Way when lying assholes like
>>>>TeeGee are ordered back into cola
>>>
>>> ? Aren't all Wintrolls lying assholes?
>>
>> Well, yes. But the grade of "lyingness" or being an "asshole" varies
>> TeeGee is about on a par with Erik F, meaning, you can't really go
>> further down
>> Other wintrolls are just extremely stupid, like DFS or tab
>
>
> Maybe, but you still haven't answered his points with specific examples to
> back up your claims.
I don't intend to
He can claim his stuff about running as restricted user until he turns blue,
I will still not believe him. It *is* possible to a certain extend, but you
have to go through incredible hoots to achieve that result, RegEdit and
diverse other stuff included. And with several apps it is not possible at
all
See, flatfish, with TeeGee it is about the same as with you: You will never
get any proof from me if you demand it. Both of you are worth much less
then a decaying pile of dog shit, and both of you simply don't deserve any
proof
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
Chirag Shukla
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:02 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >
> >> chrisv wrote:
> >>
> >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>William Poaster wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It was on Friday 14 July 2006 10:29 am, that T.G.Reaper apparently
> >>>>> said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Huh, "The Grim Reaper" is back with his usual bullshit.
> >>>>> /.me forgot to add leafnode filter SuSE 10.0...that's now corrected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Things must be pretty bad at One Microsoft Way when lying assholes like
> >>>>TeeGee are ordered back into cola
> >>>
> >>> ? Aren't all Wintrolls lying assholes?
> >>
> >> Well, yes. But the grade of "lyingness" or being an "asshole" varies
> >> TeeGee is about on a par with Erik F, meaning, you can't really go
> >> further down
> >> Other wintrolls are just extremely stupid, like DFS or tab
> >
> >
> > Maybe, but you still haven't answered his points with specific examples to
> > back up your claims.
>
> I don't intend to
Okay.
> He can claim his stuff about running as restricted user until he turns blue,
> I will still not believe him. It *is* possible to a certain extend, but you
> have to go through incredible hoots to achieve that result, RegEdit and
> diverse other stuff included.
Editing of the registry is not needed under XP to create restricted
user accounts and use them. Since the last few years, several of my
work machines (XP and Linux) are being used by staff members without
any special privileges. My parents use XP and FC4 as regular users
without no issues whatsoever. There are no incredible hoots if you know
what you are doing.
> And with several apps it is not possible at all
I would like to know a few of those several applications. I have seen
one such application that needed to be run as an administrator on XP. I
think it is bad application programming. Installation may require
admin/root rights but its usage should not. But again, thats just what
I believe. Application developers informed me that user requests got
them to make a product like that - and this was some academic program
that needed changes to system settings now and often. Linuxes
applications dont do that, which is good. But sometimes compiling them,
if thats the only option, may be time consuming.
Chirag Shukla
I agree with your points here.
T.G.Reaper
<peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> Well, yes. But the grade of "lyingness" or being an "asshole" varies
>>> TeeGee is about on a par with Erik F, meaning, you can't really go
>>> further down
>>> Other wintrolls are just extremely stupid, like DFS or tab
>>
>>
>> Maybe, but you still haven't answered his points with specific examples to
>> back up your claims.
>
>I don't intend to
>See, flatfish, with TeeGee it is about the same as with you: You will never
>get any proof from me if you demand it. Both of you are worth much less
>then a decaying pile of dog shit, and both of you simply don't deserve any
>proof
You twit, if you had no intention of participating in an honest way
why did you respondto my post in the first place?
You're dishonest Pete, and the other Linux advocates should stand up
and call you on it, lets see if any of them have the intelectual
honesty to speak up.
--
Later
T.G. Reaper
Ginsu Warrior
T.G.Reaper wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:07:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >flatfish+++ wrote:
> >>> Well, yes. But the grade of "lyingness" or being an "asshole" varies
> >>> TeeGee is about on a par with Erik F, meaning, you can't really go
> >>> further down
> >>> Other wintrolls are just extremely stupid, like DFS or tab
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe, but you still haven't answered his points with specific examples to
> >> back up your claims.
> >
> >I don't intend to
>
> >See, flatfish, with TeeGee it is about the same as with you: You will never
> >get any proof from me if you demand it. Both of you are worth much less
> >then a decaying pile of dog shit, and both of you simply don't deserve any
> >proof
>
> You twit, if you had no intention of participating in an honest way
> why did you respondto my post in the first place?
Koalman nothing but coward. He to stupid to make coherent argument so
he is only able to call people names, make retarded claims then run
away like the faggot that he is.
> You're dishonest Pete, and the other Linux advocates should stand up
> and call you on it, lets see if any of them have the intelectual
> honesty to speak up.
All other lintard COLA freaks are hipocrite. They do not have balls to
have honest response to number one idiot like Koalman.
>
> --
> Later
> T.G. Reaper
Scott W
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:41:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>> How abot it Peter, do you have *specific* examples demonstrating that
>>> it's "a horrible PITA" to run XP as a regular user?
>>>
>> You know as well as anybody else that this is the case, and that especially
>> for MS apps you have to go through quite some hoops to get them
>> behaving "acceptable" as restricted user.
>
> No, I don't know this, in fact I routinely use several Windows systems
> without admin privileges. That's why I asked for specific examples,
> and it should be noted that you provided zero.
ok, i'll give you one: the power management software that came with my
acer laptop. winXP wouldn't run it when i logged in with normal
privelages. oddly enough, SuSE let me run it with normal privelages.
T.G.Reaper
wrote:
>T.G.Reaper spat out this vile crap:
>> No, I don't know this, in fact I routinely use several Windows systems
>> without admin privileges. That's why I asked for specific examples,
>> and it should be noted that you provided zero.
>
>ok, i'll give you one: the power management software that came with my
>acer laptop. winXP wouldn't run it when i logged in with normal
>privelages. oddly enough, SuSE let me run it with normal privelages.
1. Power Management isn't exactly something you should need to be
changing on a daily basis, for the most part it's a configure it once
and you're done with it kinda thing.
2. Could you have executed this "power management software" using
RunAs and executing it with the credentials of an account that had
admin rights?
All in all, there doesn't seem to be any/enough examples to
demonstrate that it is actually difficult/impractical to use XP
without admin privileges for day-day tasks does it?
Why can't Linux advocates be honest and just admit what is so
obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
--
Regards,
T.G. Reaper
mlw
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:25:14 -0700, T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>>
>> Why can't Linux advocates be honest and just admit what is so
>> obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
>> difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
>> totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
>
> Key words: "Linux Advocates" and Honest....used in the same sentence.
> Even the honest ones, (that's not you Roy Shysterwitch) won't step up to
> the plate and break ranks.
> Take a look at the crap Ballard spews.
Hey, I'm a "Linux Advocate," and I'm honest, and no, I don't know a single
Windows [NT,2K,XP] user that can use it without admin privileges. (And no,
sorry, claims on this NG do not count)
>
> Jedi?
> Yet another weirdo who seems to think he knows something about digital
> audio despite getting trounced every time he makes the mistake of
> x-posting to rec.audio.pro.
>
> Any Linux advocates challenge these people?
> How about "7" ?
> Another oddball who seems to be an expert in misspelling words.
> Roy Culley?
> Twisted stats, yet how many Linux advocates complain about him
> interjecting his own (99.99 percent wrong) opinions into what he posts as
> *real and accurate stats*.
> Any Linux advocate complaining about him?
> He, along with Ballard, 7 and Shysterwitch are in effect making the rest
> of the good advocates look like idiots, but they still will not break
> ranks.
> They just go around with blinders on thinking all is well, when it is not.
>
> Nahh...most of the so called Linux advocates in this group have some
> serious social issues.
Personal insults aside, what else do you have?
T.G.Reaper
>flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:25:14 -0700, T.G.Reaper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why can't Linux advocates be honest and just admit what is so
>>> obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
>>> difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
>>> totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
>>
>> Key words: "Linux Advocates" and Honest....used in the same sentence.
>> Even the honest ones, (that's not you Roy Shysterwitch) won't step up to
>> the plate and break ranks.
>> Take a look at the crap Ballard spews.
>
>Hey, I'm a "Linux Advocate," and I'm honest, and no, I don't know a single
>Windows [NT,2K,XP] user that can use it without admin privileges. (And no,
>sorry, claims on this NG do not count)
Okay, then it should be easy for you to point out exactly and
specifically what issues prevent some of the [NT,2K,XP] users that you
know from using their systems without admin privileges.
This claim has been made over and over by Linux advocates, if it can't
be supported, and multiple people claim it to be in conflict with
their experience, then it should be retracted.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
Kier
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:25:14 -0700, T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>>
>> Why can't Linux advocates be honest and just admit what is so
>> obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
>> difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
>> totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
>
> Key words: "Linux Advocates" and Honest....used in the same sentence.
And you are honest? Please don't make me laugh. You should look at
yourself before condemning others for the faults you regularly display.
> Even the honest ones, (that's not you Roy Shysterwitch) won't step up to
> the plate and break ranks.
> Take a look at the crap Ballard spews.
Why? I don't read most of what Rex posts, he's too long-winded for one,
and batty for another.
>
> Jedi?
> Yet another weirdo who seems to think he knows something about digital
> audio despite getting trounced every time he makes the mistake of
> x-posting to rec.audio.pro.
>
> Any Linux advocates challenge these people?
> How about "7" ?
> Another oddball who seems to be an expert in misspelling words.
> Roy Culley?
> Twisted stats, yet how many Linux advocates complain about him
> interjecting his own (99.99 percent wrong) opinions into what he posts as
> *real and accurate stats*.
Opinions are not 'wrong' or 'right', they're *opinions*, you fool.
> Any Linux advocate complaining about him?
> He, along with Ballard, 7 and Shysterwitch are in effect making the rest
> of the good advocates look like idiots, but they still will not break
> ranks.
Plonked, plonked, and his name is not 'Shysterwitch, you slimy arsehole.
> They just go around with blinders on thinking all is well, when it is not.
>
> Nahh...most of the so called Linux advocates in this group have some
> serious social issues.
Speak for yourself, flatfish, you certainly don't speak for any one else.
--
Kier
mlw
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:53:57 -0400, mlw wrote:
>
>
>> Hey, I'm a "Linux Advocate," and I'm honest, and no, I don't know a
>> single Windows [NT,2K,XP] user that can use it without admin privileges.
>> (And no, sorry, claims on this NG do not count)
>
> I never said either way whether it was possible or not.
> I'm talking about how the oddball Linux kooks get a free ride while
> everyone else has to actually back up their statements and how the other
> Linux advocates will rarely point out the kooks errors.
Well, I rarely make statements with supporting arguments, and if I read
something that doesn't ring true, I typically call people on it.
>
>
>>
>> Personal insults aside, what else do you have?
>
> They are not insults.
> They are facts.
An insult is rarely a fact.
mlw
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:53:57 -0400, mlw <m...@nospamnoway.zz> wrote:
>
>>flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:25:14 -0700, T.G.Reaper wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why can't Linux advocates be honest and just admit what is so
>>>> obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
>>>> difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
>>>> totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
>>>
>>> Key words: "Linux Advocates" and Honest....used in the same sentence.
>>> Even the honest ones, (that's not you Roy Shysterwitch) won't step up to
>>> the plate and break ranks.
>>> Take a look at the crap Ballard spews.
>>
>>Hey, I'm a "Linux Advocate," and I'm honest, and no, I don't know a single
>>Windows [NT,2K,XP] user that can use it without admin privileges. (And no,
>>sorry, claims on this NG do not count)
>
> Okay, then it should be easy for you to point out exactly and
> specifically what issues prevent some of the [NT,2K,XP] users that you
> know from using their systems without admin privileges.
Little things, some programs typically need write access to settings files
in their subdir in "Program Files," else the won't run. Changing time and
date. Installing software, etc.
The Linux/UNIX systems have systems in place that (a) assume a multi-user
model which Windows software typically does not and (b) have administration
tools that allow a non-privileged to obtain sufficient rights for a limited
action.
These things, obviously, can be easily corrected in Windows, but to date, as
far as I've seen, have not. Most 3rd party programs and older versions of
office assume admin privileges. Also, If you install as "Administrator"
often times the programs are invisible or not setup for the normal user.
>
> This claim has been made over and over by Linux advocates, if it can't
> be supported, and multiple people claim it to be in conflict with
> their experience, then it should be retracted.
That is fair, but insults are unnecessary.
Kier
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:03:37 +0100, Kier wrote:
>
>
>> Why? I don't read most of what Rex posts, he's too long-winded for one,
>> and batty for another.
>
> The understatement of the year.
>
>
>
>> Opinions are not 'wrong' or 'right', they're *opinions*, you fool.
>
> Which is why they don't belong in a post called COLA Weekly Stats or
> whatever it is called.
Don't like 'em? Don't read 'em. Or set up your own.
>
>
>
>> Plonked, plonked, and his name is not 'Shysterwitch, you slimy arsehole.
>
> Whatever...
> My heart is saddened...
You think calling Roy 'Shysterwitch is acceptable behaviour, obviously.
Last time your excuse was you couldn't manage to spell his name. And then
you wonder why you're considered such a jerk.
>
>
>> Speak for yourself, flatfish, you certainly don't speak for any one else.
>
> I never said I did.
You seem to assume what you say is correct, though.
--
Kier
Linonut
> Any Linux advocates challenge these people?
The way I figure it, that's the job of the Wintrolls.
If I know something about it /and/ feel like spending the time, I'll
contradict a misstatement about Windows.
--
"I'm going to f'in *kill* Google!"
-- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
recently had to add the nagios client to Win-XP, the MSI couldn't be run
as adminuser, had to log out, and relogin as admin user. PITA, (and
configuring the Win-XP firewall was far more complex than it needs to
be, on a par with hand editing the iptables script, a far cry from the
ease of things with a current version of Ubuntu or Suse for example)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEuodSd90bcYOAWPYRAiyeAKCssslcr1RkYgJCGtZBoxyr+bhBfQCg0Msn
xZ3gGU1Vwy1g7utMRb1urXk=
=vtKd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Smut is one of the few things people will pay well for even if the
technology isn't very good.
-- Dale Worley
T.G.Reaper
>T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:53:57 -0400, mlw <m...@nospamnoway.zz> wrote:
>>>Hey, I'm a "Linux Advocate," and I'm honest, and no, I don't know a single
>>>Windows [NT,2K,XP] user that can use it without admin privileges. (And no,
>>>sorry, claims on this NG do not count)
>>
>> Okay, then it should be easy for you to point out exactly and
>> specifically what issues prevent some of the [NT,2K,XP] users that you
>> know from using their systems without admin privileges.
>
>Little things, some programs typically need write access to settings files
>in their subdir in "Program Files," else the won't run. Changing time and
>date. Installing software, etc.
The simple solution to this is to add the account to PowerUsers group,
as PowerUsers have write access to the "Program Files" directory and
its subs. That does have some minor security implications, but they
aren't very significant. A better solution would be to change the
permissions on the individual folder(s)/file(s) that the offending
app(s) write to and grant regular users write permission only for the
needed folders or files.
Of course the truth is that such apps are designed incorrectly and
should instead be writing the info they want to update, either to a
file in the users personal data directory, or to a selected registry
key in the HKEY_CURRENT_USER hive.
>
>The Linux/UNIX systems have systems in place that (a) assume a multi-user
>model which Windows software typically does not
Incorrectly designed apps don't indicate a fault in the operating
system.
>and (b) have administration
>tools that allow a non-privileged to obtain sufficient rights for a limited
>action.
Windows does too, that's exactly what "RunAs" is for.
In fact the Windows mechanism is much more flexible as users can be
granted a subset of full admin privileges. In Linux there is basically
root or not root.
>These things, obviously, can be easily corrected in Windows, but to date, as
>far as I've seen, have not. Most 3rd party programs and older versions of
>office assume admin privileges. Also, If you install as "Administrator"
>often times the programs are invisible or not setup for the normal user.
The assumptions made or not made by applications don't indicate any
inherent design flaw in the operating system.
>> This claim has been made over and over by Linux advocates, if it can't
>> be supported, and multiple people claim it to be in conflict with
>> their experience, then it should be retracted.
>
>That is fair, but insults are unnecessary.
I've not been insulting anybody, I'm just asking the person (Peter K.)
who made the claim about Windows XP being difficult/impractical to use
without admin privileges, to either provide support for that claim or
retract it.
--
Regards,
T.G. Reaper
Scott W
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:44:24 +0100, Scott W <d38dm8n...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> T.G.Reaper spat out this vile crap:
>
>>> No, I don't know this, in fact I routinely use several Windows systems
>>> without admin privileges. That's why I asked for specific examples,
>>> and it should be noted that you provided zero.
>> ok, i'll give you one: the power management software that came with my
>> acer laptop. winXP wouldn't run it when i logged in with normal
>> privelages. oddly enough, SuSE let me run it with normal privelages.
>
> 1. Power Management isn't exactly something you should need to be
> changing on a daily basis, for the most part it's a configure it once
> and you're done with it kinda thing.
maybe you've never used the power management. this is a TASKBAR applet
which lets you lower the speed of the processor and turn on/off
different features to save battery power, definitely something that you
want to do on the fly.
>
> 2. Could you have executed this "power management software" using
> RunAs and executing it with the credentials of an account that had
> admin rights?
not that i know of, since it's a taskbar applet. also remember that if
_I_, an experience linux user am unable to figure this out, how is a
newbie supposed to figure it out?
>
> All in all, there doesn't seem to be any/enough examples to
> demonstrate that it is actually difficult/impractical to use XP
> without admin privileges for day-day tasks does it?
>
oh, so the example is invalid?
> Why can't Linux advocates be honest and just admit what is so
> obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
> difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
> totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
>
ok, i'll add another, the control panel. YaST lets you enter the root
password and just fires it up. windows forces you to logout, log in as
the admin, open the control panel, do what needs to be done, logout,
login as normal user. and no, i've not seen RunAs when i right click it.
yeah, that's a pretty big encumbrance if you login, realise you need to
change something, change it, need to change something else. etc.
remember the login times for windows can be shockingly long depending on
your setup (YaST avoids this problem completely since you never "login",
you just enter the password). yes, i know vista will change this but, as
was mentioned in another topic, vista is still beta and is only used by
0.01% of windows users.
updating A/V software (and other things) may be problematic as you may
need admin privs to do this. i've also encountered problems with firefox
and thunderbird not running properly in a multiple user environment, but
that may be an error on my part.
Scott W
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:25:14 -0700, T.G.Reaper wrote:
>
>> obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
>> difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
>> totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
>
> Even the honest ones, (that's not you Roy Shysterwitch) won't step up to
> the plate and break ranks.
> Take a look at the crap Ballard spews.
>
> Yet another weirdo who seems to think he knows something about digital
> audio despite getting trounced every time he makes the mistake of
> x-posting to rec.audio.pro.
>
> Another oddball who seems to be an expert in misspelling words.
> Roy Culley?
> Twisted stats, yet how many Linux advocates complain about him
> interjecting his own (99.99 percent wrong) opinions into what he posts as
> *real and accurate stats*.
> He, along with Ballard, 7 and Shysterwitch are in effect making the rest
> of the good advocates look like idiots, but they still will not break
> ranks.
>
> Nahh...most of the so called Linux advocates in this group have some
> serious social issues.
>
>
i disagree with your comments about Roy S. he mostly posts interesting
news articles and gives his opinion. nothing wrong with that, is there?
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:15:45 +0100, Kier wrote:
>
>
>> You think calling Roy 'Shysterwitch is acceptable behaviour, obviously.
>> Last time your excuse was you couldn't manage to spell his name. And then
>> you wonder why you're considered such a jerk.
>
> In normal life no.
> In this group?
>
> It's just as acceptable as the various names used to address Erik
Erik is rarely addressed as anything but "Erik Funkenbusch" or "Erik F"
If at all, he as addressed as "Erik FUDdingmuch Funkenbusch", leaving his
name intact
I see it as totally inaceptable to mangle an obviously "real" name
Like you do, Flatfart
> or DFS
DumbFullShit has never supplied a proper name to respond to
> or any of the other Windows people.
Well, you did not supply a proper name yourself, Gary "flatfish" Steward
>> You seem to assume what you say is correct, though.
>
> Some of it is.
You forgot to supply the electron microscope to see it
> Some of it is not.
Well, thats the rest of it. One has to retrace ones steps several miles to
see the mountain of your lies in all its "glory"
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
T.G.Reaper
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>recently had to add the nagios client to Win-XP, the MSI couldn't be run
>as adminuser, had to log out, and relogin as admin user.
Uhhhh...that doesn't make any sense, what's the difference between
"adminuser" and logging in as "admin user," the names would seem to
indicate they both would have admin privileges.
I don't know why .msi files don't offer the RunAs option, an oversight
by MS IMO. Still, installing new software does require admin rights,
as it should. Since installing new software doesn't really fall under
the category of day-day tasks, this doesn't do much to support the
claim that Windows XP is difficult to use without admin preludes.
> PITA, (and
>configuring the Win-XP firewall was far more complex than it needs to
>be, on a par with hand editing the iptables script, a far cry from the
>ease of things with a current version of Ubuntu or Suse for example)
Don't know, don't use XP's firewall.
--
Regards,
T.G. Reaper
T.G.Reaper
wrote:
>T.G.Reaper said:
>> 1. Power Management isn't exactly something you should need to be
>> changing on a daily basis, for the most part it's a configure it once
>> and you're done with it kinda thing.
>
>maybe you've never used the power management. this is a TASKBAR applet
>which lets you lower the speed of the processor and turn on/off
>different features to save battery power, definitely something that you
>want to do on the fly.
Obviously I'm not familiar with the app, but to have to configure
something like that dynamically and manually seems like a real hassle.
That type of power management would best be keyed off of particular
events in conjunction with configurable thresholds.
>> All in all, there doesn't seem to be any/enough examples to
>> demonstrate that it is actually difficult/impractical to use XP
>> without admin privileges for day-day tasks does it?
>>
>
>oh, so the example is invalid?
No not invalid, I'm sure it's probably as you suggest, but I also
suspect that the issue is more an indication of an incorrectly/poorly
implemented app/utility than it is of some inherent flaw in the design
of Windows.
>> Why can't Linux advocates be honest and just admit what is so
>> obviously and clearly true: this claim that "it's
>> difficult/impractical to use Windows XP without admin rights" it
>> totally bogus, false, and unsupportable?
>>
>
>ok, i'll add another, the control panel. YaST lets you enter the root
>password and just fires it up. windows forces you to logout, log in as
>the admin, open the control panel, do what needs to be done, logout,
>login as normal user. and no, i've not seen RunAs when i right click it.
>yeah, that's a pretty big encumbrance if you login, realise you need to
>change something, change it, need to change something else. etc.
>remember the login times for windows can be shockingly long depending on
>your setup (YaST avoids this problem completely since you never "login",
>you just enter the password). yes, i know vista will change this but, as
>was mentioned in another topic, vista is still beta and is only used by
>0.01% of windows users.
Uhhhh...the Control Panel itself does not require admin privileges,
for example Control Panel->Network Connections will let you view the
status of a particular connection just fine as a regular user. You of
course can't change the properties or install drivers or things like
that, but the same is true under Linux for non-root users.
Exactly what Control Panel applet is it that you need to access on
such a regular/frequent basis and that requires admin rights?
>updating A/V software (and other things) may be problematic as you may
>need admin privs to do this.
Are you saying you can update a Linux system as a regular user? What
distribution allows that?
> i've also encountered problems with firefox
>and thunderbird not running properly in a multiple user environment, but
>that may be an error on my part.
I've not used TBird but FireFox is my default browser in both Linux
and Windows, and I've not had any difficulty using it as a normal user
on either platform.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:14:28 -0700,
T.G.Reaper <Rea...@127.0.0.1.Com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:37:07 -0700, Jim Richardson
><war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>recently had to add the nagios client to Win-XP, the MSI couldn't be run
>>as adminuser, had to log out, and relogin as admin user.
>
> Uhhhh...that doesn't make any sense, what's the difference between
> "adminuser" and logging in as "admin user," the names would seem to
> indicate they both would have admin privileges.
>
Of course it doesn't make any sense! that's why it was PITA! Admin guy
tried to do a "runas" on the msi, no go, didn't have permission. So he
loged me out, then logged in as admin, and ran the msi.
> I don't know why .msi files don't offer the RunAs option, an oversight
> by MS IMO. Still, installing new software does require admin rights,
> as it should. Since installing new software doesn't really fall under
> the category of day-day tasks, this doesn't do much to support the
> claim that Windows XP is difficult to use without admin preludes.
I have no objection to it requiring admin permissions to install, simply
pointing out that in this case at least, you couldn't do it via "runas"
instead, you had to relogin as admin. A far cry from sudo, which works
much better.
>
>> PITA, (and
>>configuring the Win-XP firewall was far more complex than it needs to
>>be, on a par with hand editing the iptables script, a far cry from the
>>ease of things with a current version of Ubuntu or Suse for example)
>
> Don't know, don't use XP's firewall.
>
Fortunately, I only have to use XP to test the nagios plugin, I don't
have to do anything else with it. I can live with that, XP sucks, but I
only have to deal with it for a couple of hours.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEuzv9d90bcYOAWPYRAr1TAJ4mEJJ9v6O3pYqUbLnPwtO8qR+KeQCgh+o3
hTy4otBYKpScEYsPQgIUZxU=
=i7Qk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Even if you can deceive people about a product through misleading
statements, sooner or later the product will speak for itself."
- Hajime Karatsu
Kier
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:15:45 +0100, Kier wrote:
>
>
>> You think calling Roy 'Shysterwitch is acceptable behaviour, obviously.
>> Last time your excuse was you couldn't manage to spell his name. And then
>> you wonder why you're considered such a jerk.
>
> In normal life no.
I certainly hope that in real life you don't behave the way you do here.
> In this group?
>
> It's just as acceptable as the various names used to address Erik or DFS
> or any of the other Windows people.
Well, I've never particularly liked that practice, and don't follow it
myself, if the person has a proper name. Nickname sare fairer game, but
even then I don't do it. And if you disapprove of Windows people's names
being mangled, or misrepresented, why do you do it yourself? Reason:
you're trying to discredit Roy, or you think it makes you smart or funny
or big
>
>
>> You seem to assume what you say is correct, though.
>
> Some of it is.
Very little, as far as I can see.
> Some of it is not.
You got that right at least. You should stop trying to stir up trouble and
do some *genuine* advocacy. Then you might cop less flak and contribute to
making this group a less unpleasant place.
--
Kier
Scott W
not true. you can use groups in linux to determine the appropriate
privelages. (hint, su means switch user).
>
>> These things, obviously, can be easily corrected in Windows, but to date, as
>> far as I've seen, have not. Most 3rd party programs and older versions of
>> office assume admin privileges. Also, If you install as "Administrator"
>> often times the programs are invisible or not setup for the normal user.
>
> The assumptions made or not made by applications don't indicate any
> inherent design flaw in the operating system.
>
but the initial flaws in the OS (Win9x) allowed these problems to surface.
T.G.Reaper
wrote:
>T.G.Reaper said:
>>
>> In fact the Windows mechanism is much more flexible as users can be
>> granted a subset of full admin privileges. In Linux there is basically
>> root or not root.
>>
>
>not true. you can use groups in linux to determine the appropriate
>privelages. (hint, su means switch user).
I know, but permissions on files are limited to ugo.
For example, let's say you have a file in /bin that's owned by root,
and it's group is audio, for all others it's read only. Under Linux
how do you grant a normal user write access to this one file without
granting the user write access to all files that have audio as their
group?
(hint: this is trivial to accomplish under Windows)
>>
>> The assumptions made or not made by applications don't indicate any
>> inherent design flaw in the operating system.
>>
>
>but the initial flaws in the OS (Win9x) allowed these problems to surface.
Sorry, I don't consider any flavor of Win9X to be a real operating
system. Win9X should never have existed, and I'll not dignify it by in
any way arguing in it's favor. If you can make your point with
reference to NT/3K/XP then you may have a point.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
JEDIDIAH
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:23:02 +0100, Scott W <d38dm8n...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>T.G.Reaper said:
>>>
>>> In fact the Windows mechanism is much more flexible as users can be
>>> granted a subset of full admin privileges. In Linux there is basically
>>> root or not root.
>>>
>>
>>not true. you can use groups in linux to determine the appropriate
>>privelages. (hint, su means switch user).
>
> I know, but permissions on files are limited to ugo.
>
> For example, let's say you have a file in /bin that's owned by root,
> and it's group is audio, for all others it's read only. Under Linux
> how do you grant a normal user write access to this one file without
Why the HELL are you granting other users write permissions
on a file owned by root? That is more than likely just a STUPID idea.
Then there's the whole bit about /bin to consider.
> granting the user write access to all files that have audio as their
> group?
>
> (hint: this is trivial to accomplish under Windows)
Considering your assinine example, perhaps it's a good thing
that it's not as simple under "stock" Unix.
>
>>>
>>> The assumptions made or not made by applications don't indicate any
>>> inherent design flaw in the operating system.
>>>
>>
>>but the initial flaws in the OS (Win9x) allowed these problems to surface.
>
> Sorry, I don't consider any flavor of Win9X to be a real operating
> system. Win9X should never have existed, and I'll not dignify it by in
> any way arguing in it's favor. If you can make your point with
> reference to NT/3K/XP then you may have a point.
NT and 2K were never packaged or marketed to the VAST MAJORITY of
Microsoft's end users. They are essentially irrelevant and academic. Both
of them were severely handicapped by not being Microsoft's flagship consumer
product.
--
OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop. |||
/ | \
The Ghost In The Machine
<Rea...@127.0.0.1.Com>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:59:15 -0700
<qgmnb2ddr8tuqh9ke...@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:23:02 +0100, Scott W <d38dm8n...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>T.G.Reaper said:
>>>
>>> In fact the Windows mechanism is much more flexible as users can be
>>> granted a subset of full admin privileges. In Linux there is basically
>>> root or not root.
>>>
>>
>>not true. you can use groups in linux to determine the appropriate
>>privelages. (hint, su means switch user).
>
> I know, but permissions on files are limited to ugo.
>
> For example, let's say you have a file in /bin that's owned by root,
> and it's group is audio, for all others it's read only. Under Linux
> how do you grant a normal user write access to this one file without
> granting the user write access to all files that have audio as their
> group?
Under standard Linux one has two choices, both of which are fairly ugly.
[1] Give the user the file (chown).
[2] Construct another group called 'audioedit', include
that user in that group, and make the file 664 with group
audioedit (chgrp). If one requires that the file only
be readable by group audio, one might have a problem;
however, the original problem stipulated "for all others"
(world-readable). This therefore works -- mostly.
A third choice may depend on where the file is stored; if
a parent directory is non-searchable the ACLS/permissions
on the file are immaterial. Even though the prospective
user might *see* the file name (read permission), he will
not be able to access the contents within (execute/search
permission). However, the original problem did not state
issues relating to directories, though utilizing them
properly can lead to some interesting solutions.
There are of course modifications to Linux that allow for
ACLs, but I'd have to look to see how prevalent they are
in distros such as stock Gentoo. (Gentoo has a hardened
variant; I don't know its capabilities offhand but suspect
it's related to long-ago published NSA modifications to
Linux in the 2.4 timeframe (selinux).)
>
> (hint: this is trivial to accomplish under Windows)
Aye.
A related issue: how to lock a user out of a single
file if the user and the file are both in the audio
group. This is also presumably trivial under Windows;
in Linux the problem requires restructuring similar to
that above. (The simplest: create another group such as
'audio_slobovia', if slobovia.au is the name of the file,
and chgrp to that group. There are admittedly a lot of
issues with creating one group per file, which will
probably mutate the problem into splitting the audio
category into multiple parts.)
>
>>>
>>> The assumptions made or not made by applications don't indicate any
>>> inherent design flaw in the operating system.
>>>
>>
>>but the initial flaws in the OS (Win9x) allowed these problems to surface.
>
> Sorry, I don't consider any flavor of Win9X to be a real operating
> system.
Win3.11 was a real operating system, mostly because of
Int86_Hook (?), according to Andrew Schullman. It of
course had many deficiencies, mostly in user permissions
support (the underlying FAT/VFAT file system didn't know
anything at all about ACLs and ownership). The virtual
memory in Win95 was also less than ideal, mostly because
AIUI DOS's virtual memory handling was so poor.
But it worked, and Win95 improved the user interface in
a few areas (and screwed it up in a few others). The
underlying machinery mutated a smidge, but DOS was
still there providing support for many of the calls,
Microsoft's proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Ultimately, Win95 led to WinXP, marrying the GUI of the
user side with the engine of the server side (Windows NT),
buttressing security and simplifying product maintenance --
at least in theory.
Vista is arguably the second offspring of that marriage.
We shall see regarding Vista's success.
> Win9X should never have existed,
Why not? It was perfect for the time. Sold lots of
product. One hopes for similar success with Vista but
the market is far more sophisticated now, both in terms
of computer hardware and in terms of computer user.
> and I'll not dignify it by in
> any way arguing in it's favor. If you can make your point with
> reference to NT/3K/XP then you may have a point.
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
T.G.Reaper
wrote:
>On 2006-07-17, T.G.Reaper <Rea...@127.0.0.1.Com> wrote:
>> For example, let's say you have a file in /bin that's owned by root,
>> and it's group is audio, for all others it's read only. Under Linux
>> how do you grant a normal user write access to this one file without
>
> Why the HELL are you granting other users write permissions
>on a file owned by root? That is more than likely just a STUPID idea.
>
> Then there's the whole bit about /bin to consider.
>
Why can't Linux advocates see beyond the specifics of an example, why
can't they do just a little extrapolation and see the general
underlying question?
Here, try this example then: There is a file named multitest.cfg
located in /home. It is owned by user "joe", and it's group is set to
"mgroup." Owner and group have read write access to the file, and it's
read only for everyone else. Now user Karen needs write access to this
file, but you do not want Karen to have access to other files that
have their group set to "mgroup." How do you accomplish this under
Linux?
(again: this is trivial to accomplish under Windows)
>> Sorry, I don't consider any flavor of Win9X to be a real operating
>> system. Win9X should never have existed, and I'll not dignify it by in
>> any way arguing in it's favor. If you can make your point with
>> reference to NT/3K/XP then you may have a point.
>
> NT and 2K were never packaged or marketed to the VAST MAJORITY of
>Microsoft's end users. They are essentially irrelevant and academic. Both
>of them were severely handicapped by not being Microsoft's flagship consumer
>product.
Fine, then from my viewpoint the first version of Windows is XP, and
that's what my comments refer to. Good that makes things easier.
--
Regards
T.G. Reaper
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:59:15 -0700,
T.G.Reaper <Rea...@127.0.0.1.Com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:23:02 +0100, Scott W <d38dm8n...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>T.G.Reaper said:
>>>
>>> In fact the Windows mechanism is much more flexible as users can be
>>> granted a subset of full admin privileges. In Linux there is basically
>>> root or not root.
>>>
>>
>>not true. you can use groups in linux to determine the appropriate
>>privelages. (hint, su means switch user).
>
> I know, but permissions on files are limited to ugo.
>
No they aren't. You can use ACL's if you prefer.
> For example, let's say you have a file in /bin that's owned by root,
> and it's group is audio, for all others it's read only. Under Linux
> how do you grant a normal user write access to this one file without
> granting the user write access to all files that have audio as their
> group?
>
man setfacl. Of course, GNOME and KDE both have gui front ends to do
that too.
> (hint: this is trivial to accomplish under Windows)
>
it's trivial with Linux also, your point?
>>>
>>> The assumptions made or not made by applications don't indicate any
>>> inherent design flaw in the operating system.
>>>
>>
>>but the initial flaws in the OS (Win9x) allowed these problems to surface.
>
> Sorry, I don't consider any flavor of Win9X to be a real operating
> system. Win9X should never have existed, and I'll not dignify it by in
> any way arguing in it's favor.
Here we can agree, Win9X was shit, and so was pretty much everything
that preceded it in the MS world. NT was almost usable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEvDu7d90bcYOAWPYRAhrrAJwMjfBTSmp1Mbt93Tnu8bvPEUkmBgCgqRuw
ZqXpISk39MsEfmqzM8OfOJI=
=q2ZG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"We live in the interface between radioactive molten rock and hard
vacuum and we worry about safety."
-- A friend of Steve Vanevender