Re: OT: Copy PATH from Windows Explorer ??

From: Mac (foo_at_bar.net)
Date: 12/28/04

  • Next message: Johan Smit: "Re: TC1025 comparator spice model" 
    Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:02:29 GMT

    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:00:57 -0500, Chuck Harris wrote:

    > Tim Williams wrote:
    >> "Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
    >> news:zY2dnSXvk8nA6lTcRVn-tg@rcn.net...
    >>
    >>>That's nice Tim. What you are touting as a great advantage (lack of
    >>
    >> permissions)
    >>
    >>>is the Achilles heel of 'doze.
    >>
    >>
    >> Unless you use it for personal computing... which just so happens to be
    >> 90% of the sales which M$ goes to...... but I digress...
    >
    > Not at all Tim! The permissions structure is there to help protect the
    > important kernel functions from the user programs, and the user programs
    > from each other. It is a complete travisty that a user application can
    > change the system .DLL's. This "feature" is a major reason why if you
    > ask two Windows users what they think of windows, one will say it works
    > perfectly, and the other will say it crashes frequently.
    >
    > The stability of your windows system all depends on what applications
    > you have loaded, and in what order.
    >
    > Further windoze's lack of a permissions structure in its filesystem was
    > acceptable back in the days of real "personal computers", but now with
    > internet access, shared files, and multitasking, your computer isn't
    > "personal" anymore. To ward off these "villans", you have applied
    > multiple layers of second party fixes in the form of firewalls, virus
    > checkers, spyware checkers, ... It is now like you are riding on a tire
    > that is made from nothing but patches. The air will get around those
    > patches somewhere. You would be far safer riding on a tire that was
    > designed from the beginning to hold air.
    >
    > You keep fighting off my attempts to teach you a little bit about how
    > secure systems work, and why windoze isn't secure, or even safe. Put
    > your mind to it, and shuck off your youthful know-it-all nature, and you
    > will gain a better understanding. The concepts we are argueing over
    > were developed on mainframe computers more than 40 years ago. The
    > windoze folks are just now discovering them.
    >
    > -Chuck Harris (who programmed his first computer in 1970)

    Don't get me wrong. I hate windows and microsoft as much as the next guy.

    But all the negative things you are saying about windows above do not
    apply to Windows NT, 2k, and XP, which have a much more robust security
    model and can be used safely be people who are sophisticated enough to use
    unix/linux safely.

    For example, on my windows (win2k) machine at home, my wife and I normally
    login as unprivileged users, not as administrators or as power users.
    Periodically, I log on as administrator and do windows update. I am very
    careful what I do when I am administrator. I certainly don't randomly
    browse the web or check email or anything like that.

    This practice defeats the vast majority of spyware out there, since most
    spyware requires administrator level access to install itself. We also
    don't use Internet Explorer, and only use webmail to read email at home.

    I use the same basic strategy on my linux box. One thing I will say for
    linux (also applies to unix) is that it is much easier under linux to go
    back and forth between root and a regular user. And this is a legitimate
    gripe with microsoft's OS's. They make it harder than necessary to do
    things the right way.

    Just my OT $0.02.

    --Mac

  • Next message: Johan Smit: "Re: TC1025 comparator spice model"