Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:25:46 -0600
From: Miller Grey <vigilantgregorius@...il.com>
To: Kevin Wilcox <kevin@....appstate.edu>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: Windows 7 UAC compromised

...sometimes I prefer the blank-stare approach, maybe it's these neon lights
radiating into my cube, or maybe it's because I find the Microsoft sucks
argument boring...anyway...

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Kevin Wilcox <kevin@....appstate.edu> wrote:

> 2009/2/5 Miller Grey <vigilantgregorius@...il.com>:
> > No, it doesn't make sense...I don't think Redmond missed the point at
> all,
> > they're trying to introduce a concept totally new to the everyday user
> who,
> > like Valdis said, only "...wants his dancing hamster screensaver.", and
> will
> > blindly click any OK button that pops up.  Ultimately, Valdis is right,
> > Redmond cares about profit, and creating an OS that is irritating to the
> > everyday jackass does not help their profits.
>
> Wait, so is he right when he said all they care about is profit, was

he right when he said they intentionally missed it or both?


Both...every corporation revolves exclusively around profit...and yes, they
did intentionally miss the point, I would imagine MS is well-aware of the
history of UNIX privilege management...

Microsoft market share has absolutely nothing to do with how
> irritating the computing experience is and has everything to do with
> product availability and familiarity;


Isn't this the same thing?  Irritating consumers who know only one operating
system?  Consumers are upset with UAC because it is irritating, they have no
concept of a control.


> basically, it's carried along by
> inertia. Kind of like the whole, "no one was ever fired for buying
> [IBM|Cisco|<flavour of the decade>]" deal. Most products that most
> companies have are MS-centric; if the products are there, and it's
> what people are used to, no one really gives a flying penny about how
> irritating the OS is to the average person unless it's completely
> intolerable.


I would agree...on the assumption that the majority of consumers are Vista
users since the adoption rate in the corporate world is nil...the corporate
world would give a flying penny...


> On a level playing field I would say yes, the quality of
> the computing experience would help dictate the winner in the OS game
> but this is *not* a level playing field and it's quite easy to just
> roll along simply because you already have 90%+ of the market with no
> serious contenders in sight.


I concur...(I love saying that)...

My previous post was made because rather than attempt to refute
> anything stated by M.B., you just replied with a "blank-stare" style
> "what?". I neither support nor refute his statements, I was simply
> rewording them.


In the future I will keep my blank stares to myself...but the crux of the
argument to me is not whether MS sux or not (I don't care)...the argument is
whether or not the concept of UAC (not who came up with) as implemented by
Microsoft in Windows 7 is a good one...c'est tout

cheers, vg


>
> kmw
>
> --
> Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
> if chequered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who
> neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey
> twilight that knows not victory or defeat.
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists