Re: O.K, how do I give 98se access?
From: Tim (Tim_at_NoSpam.com)
Date: 04/05/04
- Next message: Carl: "Interpreting mytoken.exe/ whoami.exe output"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Clearing of Page File"
- In reply to: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: O.K, how do I give 98se access?"
- Next in thread: Steven Umbach: "Re: O.K, how do I give 98se access?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:35:29 +1200
Dear Anon,
Answers inline...
<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:181a901c41ad4$8b6f4290$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply, while we are on the subject of rants.
>
> The ethically-challenged intercorporate "normal operation"
> of which you speak is fine. But I did not refer to it.
You bring the comment "ethically-challenged" straight out of hot air. If you
were to apply it to the legal profession (see below) I would agree, to many
companies on the internet I would agree, but to apply it to companies in
general and vendors of operating systems and software, I would have to
disagree strongly. Why should coporations suffer for a moment a blanket
judgement on their ethical stance by an individual? Simply they don't - you
are waisting your breath in uttering this and showing contempt for the many
companies that are highly ethical, employ millions, pay their bills, pay
their taxes, and don't leave wrappers all over the side walks.
Ethics need to be evaluated on a case by case basis - different countries,
cultures, customs, and also markets. Each person or corporation can have its
own set of values upon which it basis decisions on good or bad conduct. I
feel your mention of ethics is totally out of place and indicates a lack of
understanding of what actually constitutes ethical behaviour. I will be the
first to agree with you if you do say that there are an enormouse number of
trash organisations on the internet - for example - but again, this has no
relationship to this topic.
Tell me, if you built a new house, would you do the electrical wiring? Would
you do the plumbing? Telephone? If you wanted to pursue a bad debt, would
you do all the legal work? After hundreds of years of evolution of legal
systems, why would you not instigate the process yourself and see it through
to completion without any assistance? Surely by now that should be straight
forward.
By comparison to the above "professions", the computer industry has come
light years in a short time with a diabolical level of results. Personally I
find it incredible that the legal profession is allowed to exist, that court
processes are as they are, and that laws are so shoddily written - and this
is after hundreds of years of having the opportunity to get the system
right. The only justification seems to be the preservation of the legal
profession itself.
Would you say that things have improved enormously over the last decade on
the computing front?
I definitely would.
> Only that the man (and woman) hours which more independent
> people everywhere lose as a result of built-in security
> systems on computers which are not networked and which
> those people refuse to subject to the toilet of the Web
> (whereas they connect only their newer ones to the Web),
> speak volumes about the mindset upon which you rant.
I would suggest to you that mankind has lost considerably more time to
unblocking drains, replacing light bulbs, dealing with engaged tones, and
fruitlessly trying to program VCR's than has been spent on networked
computers - and will continue to do so.
My response was not a rant - I have arthritis in the fingers and practicing
typing alleviates it (or so my doctor says). I was mearly pointing out that
there is a sound foundation requirement for Security.
It has been only the last few years where lay people are to any significant
degree begining to network computers outside of a business environment.
Prior to that networking was almost exclusively the domain of the geek. You
are witnessing the shift in technology from business to domestic consumer
and as such there also has to be a shift in the methods of provision of
services. Further, while you are unwittingly at the forefront of this
technology, you are are expecting a completed job where it is a work in
progress. You can't expect an operating system that was designed last
century and released 3 or so years ago to be at the forefront of changes in
consumer activity. Take Windows 95 for example - it was designed well in
advance of popularisation of the internet, and largely as a result of its
release popularised the internet. It has been sworn about, cursed, and
berated, yet it is actually reliable as heck so long as you don't install
trash.
There are many people out there that are highly concerned and critical of
the methods provided for simultaneously providing the ability for both
corporate technocrats, small business systems managers, occasional users,
and lay people to manage the technical aspects of computer configuration.
Providing management methods that satisfy all is a substantial challenge -
the lay person expects 100% simplicity and a GUI approach, many techno geeks
require command line management, remote management, remote monitoring, and
have a disdain for GUI. All the gaps in between need to be filled too. So,
who pays for this developement and when is it to be provided? Should MS
invest in programming management interfaces for lay people on top end
servers now? Clearly the answer is no. Should MS create multiple different
copies of its operating systems so that a Home user version with all the
tools in can be split off and developed for the lay market? Clearly no -
this is something to avoid and is also something MS has worked industriously
away from for several years now (IE it is most desirable to write one
version of a program - or OS and supply that one version to all customers.
This way there is only one version to maintain. As soon as multiple versions
are allowed to exist staffing costs multiply and the probability of major
stuff ups multiply also. This is a basic principle of good design).
Wasn't it George Washington that said "You can please all of the people some
of the time, some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the
time."? My point is that although computers are far from perfect, it is
acknowledged that there is the ability to make huge room for improvement and
effort is being expended in making those improvements. This effort takes
time.
> Webocrats, of course, think only by the accepted books they
> read, so cannot understand what I am suggesting.
>
I have no idea what a "webocrat" (geek?) is and to "think only by the
accepted books" (the bible?) would be an act of stupidity. I am not even
clear what an "accepted book" would be in your mind. There are many authors
out there that write books of varying quality that is then often compromised
by the editors and publishers in an effort to target their perceived
markets. IE in the process, if the original script had value it is too often
lost at publication. So, basically, I disagree with you - I don't believe
everything I read and I really hate inadvertantly buying a book and finding
it is shallow, inaccurate, incomplete, or just poorly written.
> All I suggest is that computers and computer makers act a
> little "smarter", with a simple bypass.
The simple bypass is in Windows 2000, and XP.
> Give people at
> least the feeling that they own their own computers,
> printers - if not their licensed software. A single setup
> switch which disables complexity upon complexity of fear-
> driven barriers.
The key to combating fear is knowledge (or running away from it). The major
issue with a "Single setup switch" is where would one put it and how would
one find it - read the manual perhaps? Now, for all the other options - oh
yes many are in the control panel. You can get TweakUI and have many more.
The key to reducing complexity is understanding (sounds like fear again).
I do agree with you. However like all technology, particularly technology
that is still evolving there is always room for improvement.
"A single setup". Again, pleasing all the people all the time is a bit
difficult. There are an enormous number of people out there that actually
like things the way they are - are they to be disadvantaged because it is
not your preference? It is an option, it is there, and it can be changed.
Sooner or later something that has many options has to have a) a default, b)
an ability to change that setting, and c) there will be someone like your
self that doesn't like the default and can't find out where to change it.
Personally, I like security.
> Then you and the corporate world of which you are in awe
Hardly :) I do however understand the necessity for security. A while back I
returned to 'civilisation' after living in a 3rd world jungle for 3 years.
On arriving in a major city I was gob smacked at the inane ant like
behaviour of fellow man - rushing to work, sitting in an ivory tower,
rushing home. So much time lost to transport in a highly polluted world. It
is difficult to relate this, but I stood near a train / bus station and just
watched these people rushing hither and thither getting into little boxes
(cars, buses and trains) to rush again to be in another little box in a
different place (home or work). These ants seemed hardly alive to me. I am
not part of that culture, although it gives me lots of money for helping it
work. No awe here, pity is closer to the truth. The irony here is that the
solution for the above ant like behaviour is in technology - stay at home
and work. This illustrates in a way the importance of this topic.
> will not dictate so much lost time and money by so many.
>
> I have XP on two of my computers and have found it little
> less invasive and "in your face".
I find XP is substantially better although graphically its default config is
in ya face, but thats easily fixed.
- Tim
>
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Tom,
> >
> >I realise you may just be having a bit of a rant, but
> the "Fear / Greed"
> >thing you talk about doesn't - IMHO - exist.
> >
> >US companies have by default always erred on the side of
> providing systems
> >that are largely by default "Open". The flow on effect of
> this is that they
> >also lack inherent security.
- Next message: Carl: "Interpreting mytoken.exe/ whoami.exe output"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Clearing of Page File"
- In reply to: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: O.K, how do I give 98se access?"
- Next in thread: Steven Umbach: "Re: O.K, how do I give 98se access?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
