Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

I will say, incidentally, that I've generally found the IT guys, at the very least, keen to help. Can't always say the same of you on here--but then, they are being paid for it.

[amp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

TG. I can understanding someone defending Microsoft but the single minded, blinkered way you're going about it isn't coming across well.

Your posts summarised read. "There's absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft software and anything bad or problematic is down to what you as a user have done".

There are obviously lots of things MS have done right. Many of these related to strategic business decisions in the past rather than technological superiority then or now.

I think it's *very* naive to dismiss cloud computing. It is happening as we speak. I use Gmail as my sole email client. For sure things like this have been tried before but technology is an area where lots of idea are tried and many fail. Some of these ideas are 'bad' but quite often the idea is sound and it's the fact hardware isn't quite mature enough to realise the ideas ambition. Case in point the Apple Newton (fail) and its new incarnation the iPhone (success)

All these extra layers of security that MS introduce are simply papering over the cracks in an inherently insecure OS. I hoped in my previous post that I'd inferred that I think MS would be well advised to re-write their OS from scratch, just as Apple did with OSX. The foundations of Windows are simply too flawed for modern day computing and it's simply one of the many signs of either the arrogance of the company that they feel it's unnecessary or simply a signal that the corporation has grown so large as to be unable to adapt quickly enough.

Wyatt. At the very least use Firefox. IE is an awful browser. Bloated, slow, doesn't work to open standards and hopeless insecure.

[hobbes]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

FIrefox too is a bag of shit. Slows down, crashes, humps the processor etc. The only reason it's better that IE7 is that no one bothers to try to hack it much.
And there's the rub. The problem is less with Microsoft being holey, and more with this weird idea that Apple are somehow more cuddly and less evil that Microsoft.
SO no one really bothers writing viruses etc for OSX. Rest assured that if the minds involved in hacking windows turned their attention to Apple, they'd be fucked in minutes.
And I don't understand why people think they're cuddly. Bill only wanted the O/S. Stevie boy wanted to control software AND hardware. Now that's world-fucking-domination.
But you know, make it pretty and shave off the corners and everyone thinks you're sweet.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

What does Firefox have to do with Apple?

I thought Microsoft/IE had a similar family relationship to Apple/Safari, not Firefox.

[Lucia Lanigan]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Firefox has nothing to do with Macs. I like it a lot: it's way more usable than IE7, which is graphically incomprehensible, inflexible, and aesthetically all over the shop. And which won't even start on my PC now for reasons I can't be bothered to investigate.

Also, Firefox has never crashed or slowed down for me at home; appreciate that might not be the same in networked envcironments.

That bloody Safari thing on Macs is horrible, though.

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

I really like Firefox because MathML and SVG are native in it, and namespaces are implemented properly. But my web interface to our Exchange server is (of course) optimised for IE, so if the download's URL is in an email (like this one), you end up tending to download in IE. That's unless you take the extra 0.2 seconds to copy and paste the URL into Firefox (and let's face it, who can be arsed to do that?)

IE is appalling for technical purposes, it really is. The College is standardised on it, which makes no sense at all, given how many technical users we have.

I can't really understand why, when I say this sort of thing, TG thinks I'm having a go at Microsoft for the sake of it.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Firefox has nothing to do with Macs.

That's what I figured. Faced with criticisms regarding Microsoft and IE Hobbes drags into the discussion a haystack sized strawman.

Overall Safari is pretty lame compare to Firefox. I still use it sometimes — the text on this site looks better in Safari than Firefox for instance. And, for some reason, ESPN's live football text-commentaries run more smoothly(?)

[Tactical Genius]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Wyatt.

"But not understanding that the reason downloads might be blocked has to do with security: that would make me stupid"

Well that's your opinion, not mine.

"The first is that these settings unilaterally trashed the file instead of asking me. The second is that it waited until the end of an overnight download before noticing there was a problem"

Well it is only when you attempt to install the software that it checks whether it is digitally signed
which i suspect is what happened in your case.
Maybe the supplyer of the software should digitally sign their software?

"No, because, see, many installers these days themselves come in the form of self-contained applications, so a blanket ban on downloading .exe files would mean I couldn't install many applications that don't form part of the standard build."

Now this is where the problems start for it guys like me.
If we allow people to install their own applications from the net, it can potentially introduce worms, viruses and other shite onto the network and this is not the ramblings of a paranoid IT guy, it is the number 1 way they spread.
Also these apps have not been tested on your standard build so can potentially conflict with your OS or your other applications and increase support calls.
Then there is a licenseing issue and nobody wants a big fine from FAST.
Personally, i would ban you from downloading and installing such stuff and if you need it you would have to raise a call from the IT department and we would download and install it for you.
If you are a Laptop user, i would probably give you a bit more leeway.
If you use all those apps every day, then your IT department should make it available for you to download from a share.

Maybe your university should look at implementing something like SCCM, RADIA or similar software distribution platforms. Allowing people to just download and install their own apps is madness.

"If IE and Windows are as inextricably linked as MS claim, then I can't see a reason why IE isn't able to tell that I'm an admin on this machine, and do me the courtesy of offering me a dialog by default when I download a .exe file whose certification it doesn't like"

If this was a home machine you bought from PC world, then i might have some sympathy with your point of view.
However it is a work machine and any half-competant IT department should have different setting for users like you who have elevated permissions and a standard user.

" (The number of times I've run a dodgy executable in my career is, so far, zero.) There may be a good reason, but you haven't so far given one."

IE does not know that but i am sure your IT department does and they should have amended your settings to reflect that.

"Our local departmental guys are mostly pretty good, but the Helpdesk people are a bit rubbish, yeah. But you may have different criteria; perhaps you could say more about what's given you this impression?"

Most of your issues with Microsoft are to do with your work computer and are easily fixed by changing the default settings (IE, Windows update etc).
In places i work, you would not have had these issues as we have different software profiles for different typs of users and a software distribution platform or a network share for standard and non-standard applications.

AMP
"Your posts summarised read. "There's absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft software and anything bad or problematic is down to what you as a user have done".

I think you have badly summarised my post there.

"I think it's *very* naive to dismiss cloud computing. It is happening as we speak. I use Gmail as my sole email client. For sure things like this have been tried before but technology is an area where lots of idea are tried and many fail."

I might be wrong, but i have been in IT long enough to see many false dawns. There is nothing new about cloud computing, it is just a centalised system with a snazzy name to impress people who have little idea about computing. with all the issues people have about privacy would you want all your personaly documents sitting on Googles server?

" I hoped in my previous post that I'd inferred that I think MS would be well advised to re-write their OS from scratch, just as Apple did with OSX. The foundations of Windows are simply too flawed for modern day computing"
I agree.

I hope i have clarified my position somewhat.

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Now this is where the problems start for it guys like me.
If we allow people to install their own applications from the net, it can potentially introduce worms, viruses and other shite onto the network and this is not the ramblings of a paranoid IT guy, it is the number 1 way they spread.

Sure, and I don't think most of our users have, or would even want, or (the older ones) have even heard of the concept of, admin privileges. But without wanting to get into any willy-waving, I'm responsible for what's now a reasonably large Java project, with multiple authors and what, about a few hundred thousand lines of code, probably about half of it written by me. I really have to be trusted to know what I'm doing, and most of the time I really do, though I'm by no means either a hardware or OS expert.

If it had quarantined the app, and given instructions for a fairly round-the-houses way of retrieving it, I think that would have been legit. But trashing it unilaterally like that cost me pretty much a whole morning re-downloading.

If there had been any kind of malware issue here, incidentally, the company concerned is highly reputable, highly solvent and highly legally liable. It's not your crowd, but the idea of malware infection in one of their releases is every bit as far-fetched. Even more so, perhaps; some of the brainiest technical minds in America work for this lot.

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

I needn't add, of course, that any unlicensed anything, anywhere near my computer, and I would be clearing my desk that day.

[Tactical Genius]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Wyatt.

"Sure, and I don't think most of our users have, or would even want, or (the older ones) have even heard of the concept of, admin privileges. But without wanting to get into any willy-waving, I'm responsible for what's now a reasonably large Java project, with multiple authors and what, about a few hundred thousand lines of code, probably about half of it written by me. I really have to be trusted to know what I'm doing, and most of the time I really do, though I'm by no means either a hardware or OS expert"

I am not saying that you should not be given the rights you requested. The issues you have are nothing to do with Windows and IE, it is to do with the way it has been implemented in your workplace.

"If there had been any kind of malware issue here, incidentally, the company concerned is highly reputable, highly solvent and highly legally liable. It's not your crowd, but the idea of malware infection in one of their releases is every bit as far-fetched. Even more so, perhaps; some of the brainiest technical minds in America work for this lot"

I am struggling to respond to this without coming across as patronising so i'll try.
If the company were as competant and reputable as you claim, then they should digitally sign their software.
The should be aware that not doing so with cause problems with people not being able to download and install their software.

As i said earlier, websites can be spoofed or hacked with unsuspecting people being encouraged to download dodgy software, digital signing guards against this.

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Well, there really was no danger in this case (I wasn't following a link on a webpage).

The point, which you haven't addressed, is that Windows/IE made a unilateral security call instead of issuing a warning dialog, even though I'm an admin.

[Tactical Genius]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

"Well, there really was no danger in this case (I wasn't following a link on a webpage)."

But you downloaded it from the companies website?

"The point, which you haven't addressed, is that Windows/IE made a unilateral security call instead of issuing a warning dialog, even though I'm an admin."

Without looking at the configuration of your system or seen the build documentation for your computer, it would be hard for me to say with any certainty.

I do wonder about the wisdom of them giving you admin rights though. It is not recommended practice.

[ad hoc]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

I have the feeling that TG here is acting as unpaid security tester/hacker/consultant of WE's new Feuds 2.0 software package.

[Tactical Genius]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Hahah Ad Hoc.
I am not shit stirring or trying to wind up WE.

There are numerous reasons to slag off microsoft, but WE problems are down to a poor IT department.

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Tactical Genius wrote:

I do wonder about the wisdom of them giving you admin rights though. It is not recommended practice.

What, it's not recommended practice to give me, specifically, admin rights, or it's not recommended practice to give applications developers generally admin rights? I don't know your background; have you worked with applications developers? I don't see how apps development could work under the constraints you advocate.

ad hoc: I knew this would be the sternest test of all. Remaining calm so far.

[Mitch]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

I don't see how apps development could work under the constraints you advocate.

Ha! That's the situation I have at this company. It's bloody strange when you have to schedule days developing from home, purely to escape the iron grip of our IT department's network.

[hobbes]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

That's what I figured. Faced with criticisms regarding Microsoft and IE Hobbes drags into the discussion a haystack sized strawman.

My point was, IE7 gets hacked, not because it's particularly bad, but because people like to hack Microsoft. And Firefox doesn't need to be hacked as it's as stable as a table with a missing leg anyway.
Personally, I prefer Chrome or Opera to all the other browsers. The only thing I use firefox for is Ikariam because I can run grease monkey scripts on it.

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Amaya, folks. Amaya. All other browsers are just browsers.

(It'll never catch on, of course.)

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Though Opera looks good, I must say.

Chrome isn't quite ready yet, for my money, but will be good one day.

[hobbes]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

Amaya? Isn't that a curry house on Motcomb Street?

[Ginger Yellow]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

I like Chrome a lot (I started a thread about it on here a while back), but until it has Zotero or something equally good I can't really abandon Firefox.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

I still don't get the excitement about browsers one way or another. What is it the good ones do that the bad ones (which I use) don't?

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

IE won't be worth a spit, for me, until they address the needs of a technical clientele. It's mental that we should be using half-arsed plugins like jsMath when MathML is nearly a decade old as a concept. Chrome's still in nappies, but MathML and SVG were both on its to-do list, last time I checked. Firefox and Opera have implementations of both (albeit a little flaky in places, to be sure).

Microsoft were even represented on the relevant W3C consortia, the buggers.

Trouble is, when we reward Microsoft's contempt for us by making their products standard, we don't exactly give them an incentive to shape up.

[Wyatt Earp]

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Windows!

TonTon wrote:

I still don't get the excitement about browsers one way or another. What is it the good ones do that the bad ones (which I use) don't?

If you're using them as a client, you probably won't notice the problems, because those of us who write web-delivered content have found workarounds for most of them, and where we haven't, we tend not to serve that content, or even bother developing it, because the likes of IE won't read it.

In my case, I want to be able to describe (a) equations and (b) images using a markup language, instead of embedding bitmaps and stuff.