![]() ![]() I'm actually of the opinion that Windows could do well to lose some of the annoying, "Are you sure you wanna do this?" messages (though clearly not for important functions like reformatting a HD).Fakin 'Funk is a small application with a narrow specialization: to determine the true quality of audio tracks. Should the system ask you whether you want to do it or not?Įr, yes. When you want to reformat your hard drive. But people like me are few and far between, so Microsoft will instead concentrate on the "Gee-Whiz" market.Ī system or product which allows bad things to happen easily is *poorly designed* and deserves to be condemned I would actually pay money for a Windows operating system that was optimized from the ground up, with all memory holes plugged up, and DLLs abandoned forever, that still weighed in at less than 100 Megs. But to fix the problem, you'd have to re-do everything. The current design requires administrator rights for even the meagerest of installations, and that's stupid. You can't have users install system-wide DLLs that have access to fundamental parts of the core without running into problems. There are problems (large, looming problems) with Windows, don't get me wrong. Windows should not default to administrator, but it does Posted by storybored at 2:47 PM on November 26, 2005 Should the system ask you whether you want to do it or not? And should the system allow you to back out of it, if you suddenly realize you didn't want to reformat? How about another analogy: When you want to reformat your hard drive. But a system or product which allows bad things to happen easily is *poorly designed* and deserves to be condemned. Given that viruses and malware exist, users should do what they can to avoid them. But there's a big difference between making that responsibility easy and making it hard. Yes, to clarify I agree the end users are still responsible. ![]() " Your analogy absolves users from personal responsibility by supposing everything bad that happens to us is "just" someone else's fault but their own." However (not gonna let u off too easy now :-) ).re: (Ironically i'm in the middle of installing a new hard drive on my Windows system, and it's taken so far about four hours). My analogy applies more to the generally yucky quality of Windows. Disobedient, you're right my analogy doesn't fit the virus situation exactly. Posted by krinklyfig at 5:28 PM on November 25, 2005Ĭ. Believe me, when you give up on the idea that everyone should understand what's going on with the technical aspects of their computers, it makes the present situation much easier to understand. Perfect security isn't possible, but people shouldn't have to be well-versed in security to keep from being easily compromised. Systems marketed and sold to such end users should be much more difficult to compromise out-of-the-box. And the poor state of security in Windows is not a responsibility of those users, or anyone else except Microsoft. Trying to change behavior of users who do not understand the problem is not a solution. I clean systems for a living (among other things), and the user isn't the issue. Windows is marketed and sold to people who have no idea what "untrusted code" means. However, complaining that users are stupid isn't going to solve the problem. It's pretty fucking simple: when PC users finally get it through their heads that the default action to anything popping up on their computer should be 'CANCEL or CLOSE' not 'OK, SURE WHATEVER THX' then half this list will become moot." Know why? Because I don't run untrusted code. I haven't got a single anti-spyware or anti-virus program running on my system. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |