OEM vs Retail XP Pro

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeh
  • Start date Start date
David said:
You apparently don't know nearly as much about 'Windows' as you think.
The 'NT' platforms were designed from the ground up with user and file
security and with more security features/flexibilty than either UNIX or
Linux..
Click to expand...

Somebody please give me and other Linux bigots a reading assignment
covering the basics of NT/XP file protections. Something lucid and
authoritative, maybe between five and twenty pages, hopefully free.
 
Harlo said:
I have been running as a non-privileged user on windows xp pro for a few
years now. It generally works fine except, for example, programs like
Quicken and Norton anti-virus. Quicken insists on putting user state in its
program files directory. NAV wants you to log in as an admistrator to run
full system scans, you can't schedule a service to do this. The point is WXP
has good security, a lot of application programs don't run properly unless
you are an admistrator and most users are not willing, like I am, to hack
directory and file protections, and investigate which files need protection
changes, to get them to work.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know how you set your system up but I have no problems
running full NAV virus scans as a user.

I couldn't say for sure about Quicken as I don't use it but from what I've
seen on other systems it doesn't look to me like it properly supports
Windows 2000/XP security.

Your description, though, sounds a lot like a rather common Linux issue
where a program needs root privileges to be installed and sets up the user
data files it creates as root owned so the user can't change his personal
program preferences till their permissions are changed. In Quicken's case
it sounds like they're storing user data in a place that users aren't
supposed to be putting data in.

That, btw, is one of the things the MS XP program 'certification' is about:
making sure applications use the security features properly, like placing
user data in accessible folders in the Documents and Settings area under
their user name. If they do then security is essentially 'automatic'
because they've developed a consistent schema for implementing it.

You'd probably have no problem using it as a power user, though, as power
users have write privileges to the Program Files area.
 
David said:
That is just speculation and without any basis. For example, the ability
to infect cross platform, both Linux and Windows with the same virus,
has already been demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Then the possibility of cross-platform attacks means it doesn't matter
that Windows is predominant? Linux is vulnerable despite being
uncommon? It would seem that such cross-platform attacks would be the
most virulent, since Linux is so common on servers. But have such
attacks had any practical impact? I hope you will name one if you can.
 
Matt said:
Somebody please give me and other Linux bigots a reading assignment
covering the basics of NT/XP file protections. Something lucid and
authoritative, maybe between five and twenty pages, hopefully free.
Click to expand...

I don't know where to find a 'simple synopsis', partly because there's so
many things involved.

Here's a place to start.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/.../en-us/windows_security_default_settings.mspx

You'll also have to get into active directory and domain management though.
 
David said:
Your description, though, sounds a lot like a rather common Linux issue
where a program needs root privileges to be installed and sets up the
user data files it creates as root owned so the user can't change his
personal program preferences till their permissions are changed.
Click to expand...

I've been using Linux for years and I don't believe I've ever had that
problem. I don't know why you claimed that it is rather common.

I believe that typically the user data files are set up by the
application the first time a user runs it (witness: the gimp). The
program prompts for the path to a directory for which the user has write
permission.
 
Matt said:
Then the possibility of cross-platform attacks means it doesn't matter
that Windows is predominant? Linux is vulnerable despite being
uncommon? It would seem that such cross-platform attacks would be the
most virulent, since Linux is so common on servers. But have such
attacks had any practical impact? I hope you will name one if you can.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you think that all makes sense but you make bounding leaps of
unsupported assumptions. I said a cross platform virus had been
demonstrated. I did not say it was as 'easy' to accomplish as a single
platform target nor did I say it was in the wild or that the creators went
loopy and handed it out to every nut on the planet. Or that the
vulnerability wasn't plugged at the same time they demonstrated it.

As far as "Linux is vulnerable despite being uncommon?" That was already
true regardless of whether a cross platform virus works or not. The only
question is 'how vulnerable', and how many people will try and when.
 
Matt said:
I've been using Linux for years and I don't believe I've ever had that
problem. I don't know why you claimed that it is rather common.
Click to expand...

I only say so because I heard lots of Linux users say so. The complaint was
usually manifested as "it won't save my settings."

I believe that typically the user data files are set up by the
application the first time a user runs it (witness: the gimp). The
program prompts for the path to a directory for which the user has write
permission.
Click to expand...

I'd be cautious about using the word 'typical' in conjunction with Linux
applications.

Hell, the last time I installed blackbox (2 days ago on the webpal) it
placed the operating config files in a location not even mentioned in the
doc files, not even in the "they might be here, or they might be there, or
they might even be over thar, depending on which version of Linux you're
running" section. Nor the 'typical' place in the user's directory (although
you can manually put some there, but you have to find the others first).
Which wouldn't have been too bad because FIND can find them, except they
weren't the NAME given either. But that became clear after editing my
preferences into the one with the listed NAME had no effect whatsoever.

But that's Debian Potato from 2000-2003 (Sarge became 'stable' in 2003) so
one doesn't expect Windows style 'user friendly' and I can't run KDE in 32
meg of RAM on a 50Mhz Arm.

icewm went a little smoother.
 
Mxsmanic said:
John Doe writes:

Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain
problems, not all.
Click to expand...

It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer. Highly
likely it will be the way most computers and computer-based
machines will be operated in the future.
I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.
Click to expand...

That is very unusual.
 
I wanted to add, that the fact that it promotes users running in full blown
administrator mode at all, which is what 99% of all users do anyway,
demonstrates that security pretty much wasn't even a consideration at all
when it was developed.
Click to expand...
One word ****tard...

Linspire.

Apparently Michael Robertson seems to think all you people who harp on
about the golden rule of not running as root are talking rubbish.
 
True. That's where Brazil, Korea, China, and others come into the picture.
Click to expand...
China has done a complete 180 on Linux and gone back to Windows.
Those giants are adopting Linux en masse, which means that hardware
makers will be at a significant disadvantage if they don't provide
drivers for Linux. Can a hardware maker ignore 5% to 10% of the world
market and still outdo their competitors? No. We in the West don't see
huge Linux growth yet, but its growth in the East (especially among
small businesses) will bring it to that critical mass.
Click to expand...
In the third world they're using recycled hardware. They can't afford
to buy the latest gear hence there's no point in even bothering with a
market like that.
 
John said:
It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer. Highly
likely it will be the way most computers and computer-based
machines will be operated in the future.




That is very unusual.
Click to expand...

Not really. You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.

He's being rather subtle about it but the point he's making is that
computers can be used for lots of things and not all of them are simple
text nor things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.

For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs packet size:

echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot -persist

Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that command but those skilled
in the art are and it doesn't lend itself to verbalization very well
(unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue of typing it
to begin with in order to read it back), and a lot of complex math doesn't.
Neither do compiler command lines.

Now, some day we might be able to tell the computer to "plot FastE packet
rate vs packet size for me" but that's way past simple 'voice recognition'
and gets into advanced artificial intelligence.
 
Conor said:
Apple who in turn got by on the cheap by ripping off Xerox...

What goes around comes around and all that.
Click to expand...

.... the difference being that MS didn't have the guts or vision to build
it until they saw that somebody else was making money on the idea.
 
David said:
I'm sure you think that all makes sense but you make bounding leaps of
unsupported assumptions. I said a cross platform virus had been
demonstrated. I did not say it was as 'easy' to accomplish as a single
platform target nor did I say it was in the wild or that the creators
went loopy and handed it out to every nut on the planet. Or that the
vulnerability wasn't plugged at the same time they demonstrated it.
Click to expand...

I expect that if Linux is a bottleneck in virus transmission, it isn't
because the cross-platform approach hasn't been tried---it is because it
isn't practical and basically isn't doable. Do you disagree that those
targeting MS systems would be happy to break through Linux firewalls and
servers so as to spread their MS infections better? Ah, maybe the virus
writers are all anti-MS Linux partisans who don't want to make Linux
look bad even though it would help them make MS look bad.
 
David said:
Not really.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.
You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of what Mxsmanic said.
He's being rather subtle
Click to expand...

Doonesbury includes some comedy based on ideas like that. A
Chinese dictator was so disabled that no one could understand what
he was saying. His aid was running the country.
about it but the point he's making is that computers can be used
for lots of things and not all of them are simple text nor
things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.
Click to expand...

My reply was based on what Mxsmanic said.

Now we will argue what you want to argue. At least while there is
any point to it.
For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs
packet size:

echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
-persist Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that
command but those skilled in the art are and it doesn't lend
itself to verbalization very well
Click to expand...

Speech recognition doesn't mean that characters have to be
enunciated one at a time.
(unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue of
typing it to begin with in order to read it back),
Click to expand...

Typing it to begin with in order to read it back?
and a lot of complex math doesn't. Neither do compiler command
lines.
Click to expand...

I do not know what you're trying to say.
Now, some day we might be able to tell the computer to "plot
FastE packet rate vs packet size for me" but that's way past
simple 'voice recognition' and gets into advanced artificial
intelligence.
Click to expand...

That isn't necessary for verbal control. Speech control does not
necessarily mean the computer has to understand like a human
understands. The objective is to do what you could do by hand, and
there are many ways to efficiently enable that. A noticeable
difference is like not having to enter keystrokes on a command
line, even though the computer might receive the input as if you
did.

What experience do you have with speech recognition? What
experience do have with entering/processing/outputting ordinary
keystrokes?
 
Back
Top