Re: @Redmond's apologists

MS doesn't supply checksumming and pgp in the base install of Windows, but they do supply executeables and drivers which are signed. It's just a different way of achieving the same end.

If you're running as Administrator, software you run will be under the Administrator's user context. Duh. If you are running like this, you'd also be a fool.

No, this does not imply that admin rights are granted to the first user by default, but if you configure your machine to run as administrator - and you have to actively configure it to run as such, unlike say RHEL or CentOS which allow you to logon as root by default - you will execute code as Administrator. Again, you'd be a fool. There is runas, which is similar to sudo, but not the same, there is also UAC, which is similar to sudo, but not the same. They basically do the same things, in different ways.

Why does explaining how some features in an operating system work when compared to another operating system make the person doing it an apologist for the manufacturer of said OS? Personally I really like learning about new things, particularly in IT, other people may be bored by new information, not me.

PS. You forgot to tell us all how great and infallible the repos are as per your usual MO.

Re: @AC 16:13

Clearly, if you're running as an administrator, anything which runs in your user context with have administration rights. What they're saying is that the gadgets run in the logged on user's context and if you're logged on as an administrator that is an administrative context. You can run applications/processes in a less privileged context if they're for example a sandboxed web browser or an application initiated from a runas command which calls the app under a different, less privileged user's context.

Now we get to the crux of the matter: "not necessarily designed for the Windows users/admins ... aka lamers". After all your protestations about running as administrator and how Windows is insecure and inherently Linux is better, what it actually boils down to is that you think you're better than people who use Windows, just because you use Linux. Well, guess what? you're conning yourself if you think that your choice of OS makes you inherently smarter. Personally, I use Windows, Linux, OSX, AIX, Solaris and a little HPUX, pretty much every day at work, does that make me better than mainframe or OS/400 users? No. Not at all, it just means that I know different systems. It also means I hate it when people lord it over me about how one system is better than another because it's usually done from a point of view of a lot of knowledge about one system comparing a little knowledge of another.

Like I said above - MS cryptographically sign their updates and executables. Other companies can as well, should they choose.

I've commented here since before there were comments and you had to email the authors. I comment as AC ever since someone told me in a security related comments thread that they thought they knew who I was and where I lived and that they'd try to check out my employers security.

Re: Windows users/admins

When one speaks of those who use WindblowZE, they are called (L)users, and rightfully so.

Also, good point about the repos, most WindblowZE (l)users do not realize that.

And a final point about the use of repos, if all of your software is installed from a repository, then any and all updating is automatically handled by the repository; instead of the current situation of having to check each vendor's web site for any updates. In the WindblowZE world, to me this is a royal pain in the ass!

Re: FFS

They're making more money than ever. Why would they care?