>>"Calm down, I have experience up to Windows 7 when helping neighbors and friends."
Right - so after repeated questioning, you finally admit that you don't have any real experience of ACLs on Windows. Unless you're proposing that these neighbours were asking you to pop round and help them set up active directory or design security for the software they're writing. And yet you base arguments on your assertion that ACLs 'compexity' interferes with their usage. Despite countless people using them all the time.
>>"No I didn't try working with Windows ACL"
Yet all your arguments are arguments by assertion, based on your opinions on what is difficult. The best you've come to an objective argument is to say that traditional UNIX permissions are simpler than Windows ACLs, but that doesn't matter because Windows ACLs are not hard to use. They're pretty easy. Not that you'd know because you have no experience with them.
>>"Again my point was that perhaps because Dave Cutler, the key NT architect, had a Unix phobia, had ended up designing something dissimilar from the Unix stuff. Retrospectively, It should have been something more simple, to not end up a big mess for all those years. Should have been expected though, since it contradicted the simplicity approach."
And again, instead of addressing actual specific examples about Windows ACLs and their supposed deficiencies, we off into a psychological assessment of early OS architects (very clever ones who you're insulting, actually). All supposedly explaining why Windows ACLs are bad, but entirely dependent on your own assumption that they are.
>>"I don't care how long ago that was, I care how long that mess have lasted. "Empty battlefield"? This battlefield had been fought viciously over and over for a long time"
The problem isn't whether you care about NT security or not. The problem is that every time someone makes a comment about modern Windows security, you post an attack on ancient versions as if that is undermines what they say. It is irrelevant. No-one is arguing with you on this and no-one cares. Your words don't have any relevance to what I say, but you try to present them as if they do. I don't care. No-one else cares. It's just you.
>>"So, according to you, history doesn't teach? Do you suggest to forget everything that was in history now?"
Well no, learning from history is why the modern Windows security model is pretty good since Vista. It appears to be you who insists that history cannot teach by refusing to acknowledge that Windows is no longer the insecure monster it used to be.
>>"Do you suggest to forget everything that was in history now? Reputation that is marred should easily be whitewashed, you wish? it's not that easy, mam. By definition, it has a long-term memory of all the black ink it has absorbed in the past, contrary to both you and Miguel."
Again, says nothing about modern Windows security and just concedes the point I keep making - your attacks are motivated by your hate of Microsoft, not technical weaknesses. I defend facts, you take that as "whitewashing" and defending an opposing team. You're in this thread to attack Microsoft, not to learn or discuss technical matters: they're just a vehicle to you. And you seem not to consider that wrong presumably because you think you're the Goodies and MS (or myself) are the Baddies, and thus your behaviour is justified by the victim.
>>"No it is not, I mentioned Apple and Mac OSX, which I primarily happen to criticize from the moral point of view"
Doesn't matter if you also hate other non-Linux OSs or companies, the relevance is your hate for MS as well as it's affected (driven) your arguments.
>>"You are marvelous in the art of bouncing opponents' argument to things they were never addressed at, h4rmony! It is "fixed" in the current version, btw"
>>"ACL is proven to be a poor sub for the POSIX permission, because for a decade it failed to do what it was supposed to for the security of the OS!"
As I keep pointing out, I'm telling you about modern Windows security. Up until Vista you didn't have to use them in remotely the same way. They also changed then as well. You don't know what you're talking about and if you were honest, you were accept that (by your own admission) you have no experience of modern usage and should therefore stop arguing with people who have experience of both UNIX and Windows and are informed on this matter.
Pointing out that you condemn one OS based on how things used to be and excuse another based on things that "will be fixed in the future" is not any "marvellous art" on my part. That's just you trying to dodge the fact you're using a double-standard by attacking the other person for calling you out on it. Do you genuinely think double-standards are okay so long as you don't like the person you're condemning with them?
As to it being fixed in the current version, I was only quoting you when you said it was future versions. It's now in the latest releases but it will be a some time before it makes its way out into the real world (i.e. most users) with Android being what it is. Besides, doesn't change that you're using a massive double-standard (again).
>>MS borrowed this idea, good for them! I only regret they didn't it do earlier,
As people keep pointing out to you, you're not comparing like for like. You cannot expect a full OS such as Windows or GNU/Linux or OSX to have a permissions system like Android's "allow this app to send txts", "allow this app to access the Internet". It's an argument that is only matched in its ridiculousness by your other one that "ACLS have little practical relevance to security". Which has been shown false several times but you don't have the decency to admit to that because you see this discussion as a "competition" and your posts as "competing" with mine. (your words).
>>"It's your double standards that block this huge piece of facts from your view. My own double standards have nothing to do with that."
I'm glad you finally admit you have double-standards. Now if we can just get you to admit that double-standards are wrong even if a company you hate is the victim, we can hopefully get you to stop using them. Now point out anywhere in this thread that I have applied a double standard, assessed one company's products by one criteria and the same thing from another company with different. I haven't. It's just more argument by assertion. Well, ad hominem by assertion, really.
>>"Again, it's not the existence of ACL on Windows that was a bad idea, it's the lack of more simple mechanism to fill in the role of POSIX permissions, the history of NT have demonstrated it. It's like, having feet to move, and having a car, bike, or an airplane for a similar purpose, yet an airplane is not a substitute for the human's feet, do you get it now?"
I take it back about the earlier two - this is the worst argument from you I have heard. You want to bolt on an extra security model to Windows, one that overlaps and conflicts with the existing ACL system - you think it should have both UNIX permissions and ACLs! And you have the gall to argue that this would make things simpler! The reason ACLs on GNU/Linux are fiddly is not because their designers are unintelligent (anything but!), but because they have to work with and around the existing UNIX system. That's not to say ACLs on GNU/Linux aren't usable / shouldn't be used. But it makes it clear that bolting on a super layer of UNIX permissions on Windows would be a terrible, terrible idea. I can't believe you would even suggest such a thing and it shows what knots you're tying yourself up into in trying to maintain your position that this becomes something you have to argue to try and reconcile all your contradictions.
This is astonishingly bad. I would love to see you seriously propose this somewhere with professionals just to see the reaction.