illusion of "service==disabled", what to do when programs require admin to run...?
From: linda w (lindaw_tlinxorg@hotmail.com)
Date: 01/18/03
- Next message: John: "DNS SVR record_kerveros problem"
- Previous message: Dajo Rybski: "Re: Is this legal? Can this happen?"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: illusion of "service==disabled", what to do when programs require admin to run...?"
- Reply: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: illusion of "service==disabled", what to do when programs require admin to run...?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 02:28:05 -0800 From: linda w <lindaw_tlinxorg@hotmail.com>
I suppose I already suspected this to be true, but setting security
settings are
a bit bogus when you have user level apps (Abbyy Fine Reader 6.0 OCR
software)
that require Admin priviledges to run a 'demo' (which doesn't function
-- too bad since
the SW is otherwise highly rated).
I can see, possibly, a need for admin priviledges for a program to install
itself, but at the same time I'm even uncomfortable with that. I like
the idea
of unpacking a program all in a user-subdir and everything running from
there. Why must all user-apps (I'm including even programs like
MS-Office apps) install themselves all over the place needing full access
to all of the registry.
It seems it would be safer to have an OS that allows 'compartmental'
security
by user or by group so application misbehavior (intentional or one of
the many bugs, common to "app-at-cheapest-cost&most-features" programs
available today).
But we (self included) sacrifice safety and security for something that
'works' because
the developing engineer was too lazy to make it work w/o admin rights.
Where's the safety in running a protected mode OS when programs have
installed
services or device drivers that basically give any application using the
driver or service, full run of the system?
I'm just grousing because the 15 day demo installed with '0' days
available. Not a
good sign of software quality.
It's like other idiots who sell cripple-ware programs, crippling the
very features you
need to test to see if the program works. One company provides a plugin
that
does tonal adjustment, echo effects and 3-D spatialization. They
disable the 3-D
effects in the demo. Of course tonal and echo effects are 30-40 year
old technology.
3-D spatialization from 2 speakers is relatively new with reviews being
mixed on
different implementations -- depends on type of music and equipment
setup. I.e. --
it is the hardest to 'get right'. So of course they don't want you to
test drive it --
when I asked about this, the support person was either clueless or
thought I was --
told me if I liked the quality of the simple effects, the quality was
the same in
the more complex effects.
Like people really fall for these lines...(I know, they do...). The
more and more
gullible the US public becomes, the more I think we might need some
federal regulation
regarding quality and security, updates and warranties.
Another recent example -- had a moderate discussion with some hotshot
programmer
who thought it was cool to lock software to a HW config like MS. It
sucks when MS
does it, but at least they are likely to be around in 5 years (of course
there are no
guarantees that they won't declare our current products 'obsolete' and
unavailable for
license reissue or replacement after 5 years -- a round-a-bout way to move
consumers to forced upgrades -- on darn, you installed a new CPU? Or a
new motherboard? Oh well....guess you just have to buy a new OS)...
But anyway, small-time software thought it would be cool and I
complained about what would happen in a year or 6 months and I needed to
reinstall? What recourse do
I have if they aren't in business? I'm out my money and the product.
They arrogantly claimed to be different. That was 2 months ago. I
didn't buy their product. Today their website has a message "there is
no website configured at this address".
I feel sorry for the suckers who bought the product. Now they're hung
out to dry. No
way to support themselves. Good ol' closed-source model at its finest.
I'm afraid we're going to be living with the after-effects of the
"dot.com-boom flu" for
a long time to come. Somehow people have gotten the idea that SW, having no
minimum 'quality' requirements means it's a game to see how much bad SW
consumers will tolerate -- with the general level going down, down,
down, consumers feel they
have to put up with it. The companies that provide a minimal feature
set at the
lowest quality-point customers will tolerate, and provide the lowest
support the
customers will tolerate 'wins'. They can sell the cheapest until
everyone else goes
under, then ...well, like some companies, you have to pay $35 just to
support *them* in
documenting and reporting a bug! It's great to call it a 'support' fee
-- it supports
the company, not the user.
How's it going to change?
Maybe a 'good-software' seal of approval? Or software ratings guided by
consumer
feedback about ease of product use, problems and support? ... In some
ways, it
doesn't really matter if it is the 'user's fault -- if the program
doesn't have self-diagnositics
to determine when it is broken and what can be wrong, maybe that should
be considered
a bad thing. Can you imagine a car w/o a gas-gauge? Or, in today's
age, one w/o
a low oil or engine-overheating light? How about non-parity checked disks?
It's not like we don't know problems aren't going to occur. Why not
warning, self
diagnostic and maybe self-healing technologies? Trusted hardware that
exists only
to manage where I can play my CD's/DVD's doesn't cut it. If anything,
those technologies,
with the current state of quality, are just adding to the probability
that I'll have some 'denial' of service in accessing/using my media.
Sigh....
-l
-- -- Linda W. Email: Apply "s/@.*$//;s/_/@/;s/x/x./" (sed commands) to my From-address.
- Next message: John: "DNS SVR record_kerveros problem"
- Previous message: Dajo Rybski: "Re: Is this legal? Can this happen?"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: illusion of "service==disabled", what to do when programs require admin to run...?"
- Reply: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: illusion of "service==disabled", what to do when programs require admin to run...?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
