|
Full Disclosure
mailing list archives
Re: [Fwd: Re: windows future]
From: Peter Besenbruch <prb () lava net>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:47:24 -1000
On Friday 28 August 2009 08:29:48 Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
Maybe I'm not saying it properly... (and I won't belabor the point
anymore). If you want a password instead of a click, then set it to
"prompt for credentials" rather than "prompt for consent" for
*administrators*.
Understood. I also understand you can set up Vista to use normal users. My
objection is to Microsoft's default behavior.
We basically agree on the main point: Separate user and administrator
accounts are better. I wonder if Micosoft will start enforcing that?
The "wonder if MSFT will start enforcing that" is already answered - they
do, and HAVE been. Even with XP you could "run as administrator." I used
to do it all the time. I actually like the UAC in Vista/Win7 better as it
gives seamless admin capabilities while interactively logged on as a normal
user.
There is a difference between being able to do something, and enforcing it.
The OS on my machines will not allow a person to run an administrative
desktop. It enforces the separation between the administrator and a normal
user by requiring the creation of at least one normal user at install. Only
that normal user can log in. Microsoft encourages the opposite behavior by
default. I know of no Vista home user who runs as a normal user.
I guess it's good we had this conversation; I got to meet someone who sets up
Windows properly on his personal machines. ;)
--
Hawaiian Astronomical Society: http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas: http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
By Date
By Thread
Current thread:
Re: [Fwd: Re: windows future] Rohit Patnaik (Aug 27)
Re: [Fwd: Re: windows future] Elazar Broad (Aug 30)
|