8th May 2006, 5:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 8th May 2006, 5:53 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
I'm not up to date on the firefox mozilla argument. What's your take on it?
The system being locked down IS bad in a few ways, namely the very one you mention. In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, admin access is very desirable. I'm talking about the average user who has no idea what they are doing. I want to prevent my mother from accidently installing "bad things". As a result, if she gets a new game (like Dreamfall, which she had to find on eBay, and she's actually pretty upset at the new control system, admittedly I myself only played the game enough to confirm a correct installation), she has to jump through a few hoops to install it, and with some careful instructing by me, she knows that if the same alerts appear for something she sees online, either just let it be or call me to make sure it's okay.
And yes, Mac and Linux has viruses. Not nearly as many, but they do. The new Mac ads give a false impression that Apples are immune. They don't say it outright, but among the average user, that's the impression they will get. Even a mac should have an antivirus program. Well, a home user that is digilant can get away with it, but any business user will tell you that there is substantial risk which demands a protection program in such an environment. Same with linux. Don't underestimate the tenacity of jerks.
Locking a system down is the "straight jacket" of computer protection, and with the state of computer knowledge a lot of users seem to have, it has become the last needed step that an OS has. It limits the users, but it prevents them from hurting themselves. As such, lots of computer IT guys are supporting MS on their new stance of "off by default" stuff in Vista, just like Linux and Mac. The problem is MS's implementation of it. Too much annoyance results in users just hitting the "okay" button, and this applies to people that you would think know better like IT guys. The best idea is one presented there, copy the implementation of other systems. Whenever one needs to do something administratory, log in as an admin for that one task and only for that task, and the log in will be secure to the point that it requires a direct hardware action in order to occur, thus software can never just authorize itself (but of course it would need admin access to run in the background and authorize things anyway), and of course the most important thing, be much more intelligent about what is and is not a security risk, and remember what's been authorized before.
The system being locked down IS bad in a few ways, namely the very one you mention. In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, admin access is very desirable. I'm talking about the average user who has no idea what they are doing. I want to prevent my mother from accidently installing "bad things". As a result, if she gets a new game (like Dreamfall, which she had to find on eBay, and she's actually pretty upset at the new control system, admittedly I myself only played the game enough to confirm a correct installation), she has to jump through a few hoops to install it, and with some careful instructing by me, she knows that if the same alerts appear for something she sees online, either just let it be or call me to make sure it's okay.
And yes, Mac and Linux has viruses. Not nearly as many, but they do. The new Mac ads give a false impression that Apples are immune. They don't say it outright, but among the average user, that's the impression they will get. Even a mac should have an antivirus program. Well, a home user that is digilant can get away with it, but any business user will tell you that there is substantial risk which demands a protection program in such an environment. Same with linux. Don't underestimate the tenacity of jerks.
Locking a system down is the "straight jacket" of computer protection, and with the state of computer knowledge a lot of users seem to have, it has become the last needed step that an OS has. It limits the users, but it prevents them from hurting themselves. As such, lots of computer IT guys are supporting MS on their new stance of "off by default" stuff in Vista, just like Linux and Mac. The problem is MS's implementation of it. Too much annoyance results in users just hitting the "okay" button, and this applies to people that you would think know better like IT guys. The best idea is one presented there, copy the implementation of other systems. Whenever one needs to do something administratory, log in as an admin for that one task and only for that task, and the log in will be secure to the point that it requires a direct hardware action in order to occur, thus software can never just authorize itself (but of course it would need admin access to run in the background and authorize things anyway), and of course the most important thing, be much more intelligent about what is and is not a security risk, and remember what's been authorized before.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)