KnightWRX
May 2, 09:45 AM
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
tjcampbell
Apr 24, 05:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
Dark
Oct 25, 11:51 PM
I personally really want this revision to made before the holiday season. I'm really in the market for a Mac-Pro and this would be the perfect Christmas/Birthday Gift. It would really upset me to get one and then shortly after Christmas the update it made. I think Apple needs to make better marketing decisions as to when the update their product lines.
boncellis
Jul 12, 06:16 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever. If Apple is up to it, we are set to see the strongest Apple line up ever. And thats saying a bit, since the current lineup is already mighty all by itself
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
charliehustle
Nov 6, 04:41 PM
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by benixau
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
Simply won't happen unless you're happy to shell out a half million dollars for a POWER4 supplied Power Mac.
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
Simply won't happen unless you're happy to shell out a half million dollars for a POWER4 supplied Power Mac.
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 04:06 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for client�le a little up market from Adobe users.
Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for client�le a little up market from Adobe users.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:19 PM
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale. :(
Yes, you're right, it's still unstable and still has the potential to become a real disaster. I was more working from the angle that this is the result of a truly devastating natural disaster: a real freak of nature. Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
Yes, you're right, it's still unstable and still has the potential to become a real disaster. I was more working from the angle that this is the result of a truly devastating natural disaster: a real freak of nature. Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 11:27 AM
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
![obama osama comparison. Here#39;s a good one for comparison. [link to msnbcmedia1.msn.com]. Reply Report Abuse](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vVq87Qg9jKUpJ2FwC81-yvJB9onsb9pGzvDf3wruhvqjzEqccC1LZ4bfYMOjGpFHu12ncPF26-hBN1agP4-5wUESM2gg5Tugb62dkVk05zVy22buWxuXXvebsjDnmhvDLFmTsplco0g87B9vPBi0Omj0V4V58gCJ8re-phAtNVT3BMEQ=s0-d "Here#39;s a good one for comparison. [link to msnbcmedia1.msn.com]. Reply Report Abuse")
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:06 PM
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
~Shard~
Oct 30, 05:45 PM
Personally I'm waiting for this upgrade not for the 8 cores (it doesn't really help my kind of workflow much) but hopefully a base of 2 gig ram for less and a price drop, even a small one on the quad 2.66 and 3.0Ghz processors. Considering the Macbook Pros now come with 2 gig base it seems fairly likely.
Keep in mind the Mac Pro does not use the same type of RAM as the MBP. The Mac Pro uses FB-DIMM technology which is much more expesnsive, so as a result, I would disagree with you and say that it is not very likely we will see 2 GB as the base RAM configuration in the new Mac Pros - not without the extra cost being compensated for in some manner. :cool:
Keep in mind the Mac Pro does not use the same type of RAM as the MBP. The Mac Pro uses FB-DIMM technology which is much more expesnsive, so as a result, I would disagree with you and say that it is not very likely we will see 2 GB as the base RAM configuration in the new Mac Pros - not without the extra cost being compensated for in some manner. :cool:
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 07:26 PM
When your moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature are bigoted and wrong, yes, we will attack you. Get used to it because that is the direction the world is moving, like it or not.
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
~Shard~
Oct 30, 05:45 PM
Personally I'm waiting for this upgrade not for the 8 cores (it doesn't really help my kind of workflow much) but hopefully a base of 2 gig ram for less and a price drop, even a small one on the quad 2.66 and 3.0Ghz processors. Considering the Macbook Pros now come with 2 gig base it seems fairly likely.
Keep in mind the Mac Pro does not use the same type of RAM as the MBP. The Mac Pro uses FB-DIMM technology which is much more expesnsive, so as a result, I would disagree with you and say that it is not very likely we will see 2 GB as the base RAM configuration in the new Mac Pros - not without the extra cost being compensated for in some manner. :cool:
Keep in mind the Mac Pro does not use the same type of RAM as the MBP. The Mac Pro uses FB-DIMM technology which is much more expesnsive, so as a result, I would disagree with you and say that it is not very likely we will see 2 GB as the base RAM configuration in the new Mac Pros - not without the extra cost being compensated for in some manner. :cool:
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:51 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
BJNY
Oct 14, 08:21 AM
HP to announced quad-core workstations on Nov. 13th
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/13/quadcore/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/13/quadcore/index.php
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
Well�we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don�t have to go there. :p
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 12:45 PM
But any time a fad gets discussed over a period of years, it's no longer a fad, it's a trend.
jeffgarden
Mar 18, 05:04 PM
Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:10 PM
If this is all iTV is going to offer for $249 then forget it.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:07 AM
Another one...
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
blastvurt
Apr 10, 11:42 AM
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
Mobile gaming has been around for years in the form of handheld consoles. Hasn't really affected consoles that you plug into your TV/monitor.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
How is going to blur?
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
Mobile gaming has been around for years in the form of handheld consoles. Hasn't really affected consoles that you plug into your TV/monitor.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
How is going to blur?
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:53 AM
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
samdweck
Oct 7, 07:11 PM
yes, we can still be friends, and i am sorry about comparing you to hitler... i am jewish and know the seriousness of that!
No comments:
Post a Comment