Windows Vista WTF
-
@asuffield said:
@Kemp said:
@KenW said:
Simple example? Data compression. Sure, 7Zip is great; I use it myself. But compare the GUI version against WinZip, and tell me which one you'd rather explain to my mother via a long-distance telephone call?
As for your compression question, I'd rather not install 7zip in the first place (gui version or not) when the archive manager that ships with Ubuntu does quite nicely...
Not to mention that 7zip is for working with 7z files, not zip files, and the GUI is exactly the same on Windows as it is on every other platform.
On windows I use IZarc or ZipGenious... they both do fine and are just as good as winzip and free and handle most compression formats AND if you have 7zip installed it will use that for decompressing 7z files.
-
@Welbog said:
@death said:
Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Welbog said:
Indeed. "I don't want to learn new things because it's pointless" is The Real WTF. We've found it. Thread over. This may even be bigger than The Real WTF. This may, in fact, be The True WTF — the WTF template; the abstract WTF from which all other WTFs are instanced.@death said:
Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?
-
@Welbog said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Welbog said:
Indeed. "I don't want to learn new things because it's pointless" is The Real WTF. We've found it. Thread over. This may even be bigger than The Real WTF. This may, in fact, be The True WTF — the WTF template; the abstract WTF from which all other WTFs are instanced.@death said:
Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?I don't know. Being so lazy that you don't want to learn things is one thing. But then to come onto forums and tell everyone they are wrong and product X is crap BECAUSE you are that lazy? To me that is TRWTF.
-
@Welbog said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Welbog said:
Indeed. "I don't want to learn new things because it's pointless" is The Real WTF. We've found it. Thread over. This may even be bigger than The Real WTF. This may, in fact, be The True WTF — the WTF template; the abstract WTF from which all other WTFs are instanced.@death said:
Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?I can just imagine the kind of code that results from this attitude...
// I am sure there is a function that replaces text inside of a string for me... But learning something for learnings sake is a waste of time and brain resource.
public string StringReplace(string string1, string string2)
{
... [use your imagination]
}
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Welbog said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Indeed. "I don't want to learn new things because it's pointless" is The Real WTF. We've found it. Thread over. This may even be bigger than The Real WTF. This may, in fact, be The True WTF — the WTF template; the abstract WTF from which all other WTFs are instanced.@Welbog said:
Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!@death said:
Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?The real WTF is the fact that you people presume learning things is more important than understanding and using ones intelligence. It is not. Knowing where to look for knowledge and being capable for understanding it are the things that empower you to be able to handle anything, not just the cases that learning has walked you through. The American schooling style of making trained monkeys has crippled your minds. I have been to courses with textbooks that explain nothing and all they give you is instructions. Click here, open that etc... All for Microsoft products. Taking pride in being a trained monkey is incomprehensible to me.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I can just imagine the kind of code that results from this attitude...
// I am sure there is a function that replaces text inside of a string for me... But learning something for learnings sake is a waste of time and brain resource.
public string StringReplace(string string1, string string2)
{
... [use your imagination]
}
Are you dumb or just play one to insult me? I shall presume the former. "Not learning things from learnings sake" means that when given a task one first tries to understand it and when one knows too little for it one LEARNS to understand better and to pick the wisest course. Your example is point blank diametrically opposite and silly.
-
@death said:
...
The real WTF is the fact that you people presume learning things is more important than understanding and using ones intelligence. It is not. Knowing where to look for knowledge and being capable for understanding it are the things that empower you to be able to handle anything, not just the cases that learning has walked you through. The American schooling style of making trained monkeys has crippled your minds. I have been to courses with textbooks that explain nothing and all they give you is instructions. Click here, open that etc... All for Microsoft products. Taking pride in being a trained monkey is incomprehensible to me.
...
Are you dumb or just play one to insult me? I shall presume the former. "Not learning things from learnings sake" means that when given a task one first tries to understand it and when one knows too little for it one LEARNS to understand better and to pick the wisest course. Your example is point blank diametrically opposite and silly.
Brice Richards? Is that you?
-
P.S And FYI I am lazy. Just exactly lazy enough to never do a half assed job but do it right the first time, exactly enough lazy to never reinvent anything and just lazy enough to learn from others mistakes...
And who the fuck is Bryce Richards?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@death said:
...
The real WTF is the fact that you people presume learning things is more important than understanding and using ones intelligence. It is not. Knowing where to look for knowledge and being capable for understanding it are the things that empower you to be able to handle anything, not just the cases that learning has walked you through. The American schooling style of making trained monkeys has crippled your minds. I have been to courses with textbooks that explain nothing and all they give you is instructions. Click here, open that etc... All for Microsoft products. Taking pride in being a trained monkey is incomprehensible to me.
...
Are you dumb or just play one to insult me? I shall presume the former. "Not learning things from learnings sake" means that when given a task one first tries to understand it and when one knows too little for it one LEARNS to understand better and to pick the wisest course. Your example is point blank diametrically opposite and silly.
Brice Richards? Is that you?
"I don't need to learn anything new! I already know how to use the clipboard for inter process communication! You people and your 'sockets'... you are all brainwashed!"
-
@death said:
P.S And FYI I am lazy. Just exactly lazy enough to never do a half assed job but do it right the first time, exactly enough lazy to never reinvent anything and just lazy enough to learn from others mistakes...
This appears to contradict what you said earlier about learning.
-
@Welbog said:
@death said:
P.S And FYI I am lazy. Just exactly lazy enough to never do a half assed job but do it right the first time, exactly enough lazy to never reinvent anything and just lazy enough to learn from others mistakes...
This appears to contradict what you said earlier about learning.Funny... All I read was:
"P.S And FYI I am lazy. Just exactly lazy enough to continue using the clipboard for inter process communication instead of learning something new..."
-
I'm with death here.
Feeling like hearing myself speaking, except her opinion on the American schooling style.
-
Sigh. Ignorance is bliss. What has being a shortsighted idiot trained monkey too old to learn new tricks got to do with what I said? You do not understand me do you... I guess then It will have to wait for the day you awaken and understand: Learing for learing and learning to understand are very different things.
-
@death said:
P.S And FYI I am lazy. Just exactly lazy enough to never do a half
assed job but do it right the first time, exactly enough lazy to never
reinvent anything and just lazy enough to learn from others mistakes...And who the fuck is Bryce Richards?
Do try and keep up here...
http://forums.thedailywtf.com//tags/lunatic+brice+richard/default.aspx
-
@death said:
Sigh. Ignorance is bliss.
I guess so, you sure seem happy.
@death said:
What has being a shortsighted idiot trained monkey too old to learn new tricks got to do with what I said?
You seem to fit the qualifications... you tell us.
@death said:
You do not understand me do you... I guess then It will have to wait for the day you awaken and understand: Learing for learing and learning to understand are very different things.
If I do not understand you, it is because you make no sense.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@death said:
Sigh. Ignorance is bliss.
I guess so, you sure seem happy.
@death said:
What has being a shortsighted idiot trained monkey too old to learn new tricks got to do with what I said?
You seem to fit the qualifications... you tell us.
I liked the debate better.You are like a child with fingers in your ears humming to protect yourself against all faults in what you believe to be the absolute truth...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@death said:
You do not understand me do you... I guess then It will have to wait for the day you awaken and understand: Learing for learing and learning to understand are very different things.
If I do not understand you, it is because you make no sense.
It makes no sense because it is beyond your capacity to understand and against your style of thinking. It is OK tho. It seems what you do suits you and enjoy it, you just have been doing the same thing too long and can lost sight of what could be differnt. You know one thing fully and that one thing is what measure all others against... Nothing and nobody can convince you to see its faults and those that try are idiots... A familiar mentality. One of a fanatic...
A reply of only insults and no philosophy means one has lost. I have nothing more to say to you.
-
@Welbog said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Welbog said:
Indeed. "I don't want to learn new things because it's pointless" is The Real WTF. We've found it. Thread over. This may even be bigger than The Real WTF. This may, in fact, be The True WTF — the WTF template; the abstract WTF from which all other WTFs are instanced.@death said:
Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?Not true. Just because you thought something is a good idea does not mean that we should make it standardized and force everyone to learn it. I learned many systems in my short time programming and by god if I can learn 1 less I will be happy... so far no luck, but hey maybe one day I can just stick to super-os-from-outer-space which became the standard and live out my days in quiet ignorance.
-
And besides all the WTFery involved in Death's posts... I know I personally enjoy sitting down and learning something that I may or may not ever use. It can be very satisfying.
And no, I see nothing wrong with that, and I also know I am not the only one in this world that is curious and likes to learn.
If I didn't have so much to do, I would do that all the time, in fact. Ahhh to win the lottery...
And Death, if you are trying to imply that I am a brainwashed/dead college kid, you could not be more wrong. But I don't need to go into details to see that you might just be out of your mind.
But how this thread even got on this path is beyond me. You don't know how to use Windows. You make grossly ignorant statement and assumptions, and then back it up by saying learning is for monkeys?
Congratulations you are the TRWTF.
-
@death said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@death said:
Sigh. Ignorance is bliss.
I guess so, you sure seem happy.
@death said:
What has being a shortsighted idiot trained monkey too old to learn new tricks got to do with what I said?
You seem to fit the qualifications... you tell us.
I liked the debate better.You are like a child with fingers in your ears humming to protect
yourself against all faults in what you believe to be the absolute
truth...@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@death said:
You do not understand me do you... I guess then It will have to wait for the day you awaken and understand: Learing for learing and learning to understand are very different things.
If I do not understand you, it is because you make no sense.
It makes no sense because it is beyond your capacity to understand and against your style of thinking. It is OK tho. It seems what you do suits you and enjoy it, you just have been doing the same thing too long and can lost sight of what could be differnt. You know one thing fully and that one thing is what measure all others against... Nothing and nobody can convince you to see its faults and those that try are idiots... A familiar mentality. One of a fanatic...
A reply of only insults and no philosophy means one has lost. I have nothing more to say to you.
Your statements are nonsensical. You are against curiosity and learning... and yet say that I am boxed in?
You keep speaking of this one absolute truth... what would that be? That you hate windows? We all get it already. Thanks.
As far as your other statements about me being pigeonholed or doing one thing for too long... I am not even sure how to reply. Gross assumptions that really don't match anything I have said or anything I am.
Grasping at straws here I can see...
And no, I am not trying to talk philosophy here. I have no idea why you would think anything like that is relevant.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I know I personally enjoy sitting down and learning something that I may or may not ever use. It can be very satisfying.
Thank you for phrasing that in a way that I couldn't. Learning just to learn is a property that I thought was inherent in all programmers at this site. We're here to learn about (and above all, laugh at) bad IT even though we may never come to apply what we've learned, aren't we?
And no, I see nothing wrong with that, and I also know I am not the only one in this world that is curious and likes to learn.
-
@dlikhten said:
@Welbog said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Welbog said:
Indeed. "I don't want to learn new things because it's pointless" is The Real WTF. We've found it. Thread over. This may even be bigger than The Real WTF. This may, in fact, be The True WTF — the WTF template; the abstract WTF from which all other WTFs are instanced.@death said:
Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?Not true. Just because you thought something is a good idea does not mean that we should make it standardized and force everyone to learn it. I learned many systems in my short time programming and by god if I can learn 1 less I will be happy... so far no luck, but hey maybe one day I can just stick to super-os-from-outer-space which became the standard and live out my days in quiet ignorance.
No one is saying anything about forcing anything on anyone.
You came here and bitched and complained about Windows. All of your posts and examples so far have shown an extreme lack of ability and understanding.
-
@Welbog said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I know I personally enjoy sitting down and learning something that I may or may not ever use. It can be very satisfying.
Thank you for phrasing that in a way that I couldn't. Learning just to learn is a property that I thought was inherent in all programmers at this site. We're here to learn about (and above all, laugh at) bad IT even though we may never come to apply what we've learned, aren't we?
And no, I see nothing wrong with that, and I also know I am not the only one in this world that is curious and likes to learn.
Well, I would say (and I think most would agree) learning to learn and having intellectual curiosity is a property of intelligence, not really anything to do with programmers as such.
But this is all besides the point anyway.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dlikhten said:
@Welbog said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Welbog said:
Indeed. "I don't want to learn new things because it's pointless" is The Real WTF. We've found it. Thread over. This may even be bigger than The Real WTF. This may, in fact, be The True WTF — the WTF template; the abstract WTF from which all other WTFs are instanced.@death said:
Oh noes! Vista is chewing up my brain cyclez!!!!1!!!!ELeVENTY!1!!!!!!Learning something for learnings sake is waste of time and brain resource.
WTF?Not true. Just because you thought something is a good idea does not mean that we should make it standardized and force everyone to learn it. I learned many systems in my short time programming and by god if I can learn 1 less I will be happy... so far no luck, but hey maybe one day I can just stick to super-os-from-outer-space which became the standard and live out my days in quiet ignorance.
No one is saying anything about forcing anything on anyone.
You came here and bitched and complained about Windows. All of your posts and examples so far have shown an extreme lack of ability and understanding.
<defeated>
Meh, i take it back, learning something just for the hell of it aint a bad thing.
</defeated>
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
And besides all the WTFery involved in Death's posts... I know I personally enjoy sitting down and learning something that I may or may not ever use. It can be very satisfying.
And no, I see nothing wrong with that, and I also know I am not the only one in this world that is curious and likes to learn.
Couriosity is yearning for understanding. Learning because you are curious is not learning for learnings sake. Learning for learnings sake Is to do Microsoft certificate courses...
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
If I didn't have so much to do, I would do that all the time, in fact. Ahhh to win the lottery...
I pray that you do. Then you would have the time to see that there are other truths out there.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
No, I'm implying you are a high level professional in a very narrow sector of IT. It makes you good at what you do but ignorant of all else.And Death, if you are trying to imply that I am a brainwashed/dead college kid, you could not be more wrong. But I don't need to go into details to see that you might just be out of your mind.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Congratulations you are the TRWTF.
YAY! I shall bear that title with honor.
-
@death said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
And besides all the WTFery involved in Death's posts... I know I personally enjoy sitting down and learning something that I may or may not ever use. It can be very satisfying.
And no, I see nothing wrong with that, and I also know I am not the only one in this world that is curious and likes to learn.
Couriosity is yearning for understanding. Learning because you are curious is not learning for learnings sake. Learning for learnings sake Is to do Microsoft certificate courses...
Getting certified to look more attractive to an employer or customer is stupid?
Are you saying you would need to get certified to use Windows?
Not that I care, I don't take certification courses... but I wouldn't hesitate to if I thought it might benefit me in some way.
@death said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
If I didn't have so much to do, I would do that all the time, in fact. Ahhh to win the lottery...
I pray that you do. Then you would have the time to see that there are other truths out there.
WTF are you talking about? Are you high?
@death said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
No, I'm implying you are a high level professional in a very narrow sector of IT. It makes you good at what you do but ignorant of all else.And Death, if you are trying to imply that I am a brainwashed/dead college kid, you could not be more wrong. But I don't need to go into details to see that you might just be out of your mind.
Thats not true at all... I am actually involved in many levels of many sectors of many industries. I wear many hats. But ignorant assumptions are your style... who am I to argue?
@death said:@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Congratulations you are the TRWTF.
YAY! I shall bear that title with honor.
You already have been.
-
Children, the fabric of this thread (?) is coming undone.
MasterPlan, your blatant prickishness does not lend credence to your claims.
Death, learn to shut it. Walk away.I suggest a lockdown of sorts.
-
/me smiles.
Good to know.dhromed, I'm done.
-
@dhromed said:
Children, the fabric of this thread (?) is coming undone.
MasterPlan, your blatant prickishness does not lend credence to your claims.
Death, learn to shut it. Walk away.I suggest a lockdown of sorts.
Feel free to rebut any of my claims anytime.
-
@MarcB said:
@m0ffx said:
He was running as the Admin at home, and still couldn't
delete the file owned by the Admin at work. If you or anyone thinks
that is desirable behaviour, then you at the very least have a concept
of what 'Admin' means that is vastly different to mine.@m0ffx said:
When the file owned by the domain admin is on a storage device (USB in this case, but it could just as well be an internal drive) which is then connected to a different computer that is not on the domain.
I come from a Linux background; my expectation is that local root/admin has full control over devices connected to the local machine. I would not expect local root to have full control over network shares, but that is not what we are talking about.
Yes, but that's because Unix/Linux file ownership is a very simplistic affair. A file owned by root is UID 0, and it's the same UID 0 on pretty much every other Unix system out there. A zero here is a zero there is a zero everywhere. Ownership data on a Windows/NTFS system is totally different. It's not stored as your "simple" ID number, whatever number your account happens to have. It's stored as a hash of your ID number, AND the ID number of your system. If the machine in question is part of a domain, then that system ID number is constant across all systems in the domain. In other words, an Admin account isn't creating a file with the Windows equivalent of UID 0. It's creating "0+long random number".
Your home machine's Admin account will essentially NEVER have the same unique user ID bits that the Admin accounts on (theoretically) every other Domain or system in the universe have.
That much is sensible and reasonable, and I'd sort of figured out it was the case.
So why couldn't the home Admin account delete the file created by the work Admin account? Because "Admin/Local Machine" has a different set of ID bits on the disk than "Admin/Work Machine" does.
That much is not what I expect. What I expect is that Admin/Any machine completely ignores who owns the file or what the permissions are! Evidently this is not how Windows does things; one can debated whether or not it is desirable, but...
That being said, you CAN use your local Admin account to force an ownership takeover of any of these files. It's exactly the same as chown on Unix boxes. The original ownership bits are replaced with whatever you want. In this case, it'd be replacing 'Administrator/m0ffx Work System ID" with "Administrator/m0ffx Home Box". Still Administrator account name, but now with your home system's ID bits as well.
Try it sometime... take an NTFS drive from one machine, and stick it into another (let's not cheat and used two machines ghosted/cloned from a common source). See how far you can get accessing/modifying files on that "foreign" drive without having to force changes in ownership.
So, I can't delete a file even though I'm Admin/m0ffx Home Box, because I don't own it. But I can take ownership of it, and then I can delete it! I'm sorry, but What. The. Fuck. It's a bit like having the only key to a door, but anyone can change the lock barrel to one that takes their key. It doesn't actually do anything except put an extra step in the process of getting in, or of deleting a file.
-
@m0ffx said:
@MarcB said:
@m0ffx said:
He was running as the Admin at home, and still couldn't
delete the file owned by the Admin at work. If you or anyone thinks
that is desirable behaviour, then you at the very least have a concept
of what 'Admin' means that is vastly different to mine.@m0ffx said:
When the file owned by the domain admin is on a storage device (USB in this case, but it could just as well be an internal drive) which is then connected to a different computer that is not on the domain.
I come from a Linux background; my expectation is that local root/admin has full control over devices connected to the local machine. I would not expect local root to have full control over network shares, but that is not what we are talking about.
Yes, but that's because Unix/Linux file ownership is a very simplistic affair. A file owned by root is UID 0, and it's the same UID 0 on pretty much every other Unix system out there. A zero here is a zero there is a zero everywhere. Ownership data on a Windows/NTFS system is totally different. It's not stored as your "simple" ID number, whatever number your account happens to have. It's stored as a hash of your ID number, AND the ID number of your system. If the machine in question is part of a domain, then that system ID number is constant across all systems in the domain. In other words, an Admin account isn't creating a file with the Windows equivalent of UID 0. It's creating "0+long random number".
Your home machine's Admin account will essentially NEVER have the same unique user ID bits that the Admin accounts on (theoretically) every other Domain or system in the universe have.
That much is sensible and reasonable, and I'd sort of figured out it was the case.
So why couldn't the home Admin account delete the file created by the work Admin account? Because "Admin/Local Machine" has a different set of ID bits on the disk than "Admin/Work Machine" does.
That much is not what I expect. What I expect is that Admin/Any machine completely ignores who owns the file or what the permissions are! Evidently this is not how Windows does things; one can debated whether or not it is desirable, but...
That being said, you CAN use your local Admin account to force an ownership takeover of any of these files. It's exactly the same as chown on Unix boxes. The original ownership bits are replaced with whatever you want. In this case, it'd be replacing 'Administrator/m0ffx Work System ID" with "Administrator/m0ffx Home Box". Still Administrator account name, but now with your home system's ID bits as well.
Try it sometime... take an NTFS drive from one machine, and stick it into another (let's not cheat and used two machines ghosted/cloned from a common source). See how far you can get accessing/modifying files on that "foreign" drive without having to force changes in ownership.
So, I can't delete a file even though I'm Admin/m0ffx Home Box, because I don't own it. But I can take ownership of it, and then I can delete it! I'm sorry, but What. The. Fuck. It's a bit like having the only key to a door, but anyone can change the lock barrel to one that takes their key. It doesn't actually do anything except put an extra step in the process of getting in, or of deleting a file.
As has said before (a few times) this is not really an issue of security. It is just how NTFS works. The whole argument though was not (originally) whether this is right or wrong. It simply is what it is. The argument is that this IS how it works, and it is not bug or a significant problem in Windows. If you understand how things work, it is very easy to work with.
This is in direct contradiction to dlikhten's claims that Windows is all messed up because it gives him no way to delete a file.
-
m0ffix, yep. thats exactly the core issue. On XP you cant GIVE ownership either ... Only on a server you can. talk about a pain in the butt.
Oh, there are win wizards around, I pose puzzle for you.
Hypothetical case. XP home. An admin user directory of a lost windows install contains files you must have. You are admin, How do you gain access to them without moving the drive or booting linux?
-
@death said:
m0ffix, yep. thats exactly the core issue. On XP you cant GIVE ownership either ... Only on a server you can. talk about a pain in the butt.
Oh, there are win wizards around, I puzzle for you.
Hypotetical case. XP home. An admin user directory of a lost windows install contains files you must have. You are admin, How do you gain access to them without moving the drive or booting linux?
On XP you can TAKE ownership as demonstrated by the link I posted previously. As MarcB said, much like chown in linux.
This should also solve your hypothetical issue.
EDIT: Actually here is the link again. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308421
Try reading it this time, you will see it answers your hypothetical case.
Thank you, come again!
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
As has said before (a few times) this is not really an issue of security. It is just how NTFS works. The whole argument though was not (originally) whether this is right or wrong. It simply is what it is. The argument is that this IS how it works, and it is not bug or a significant problem in Windows. If you understand how things work, it is very easy to work with.
This is in direct contradiction to dlikhten's claims that Windows is all messed up because it gives him no way to delete a file.
OK. Now can someone catch all these worms and weld them back in their can?
-
I know answers to my own puzzles. Otherwise Id take them to a help forum. Is this feature hiding sane?
If you are running Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, you must start the computer in safe mode, and then log on with an account that has Administrative rights to have access to the Security tab.
How about I had such directory on USB media? USB drivers are not loaded in Safe mode...
-
@death said:
I know answers to my own puzzles. Otherwise Id take them to a help forum. Is this feature hiding sane?
If you are running Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, you must start
the computer in safe mode, and then log on with an account that has
Administrative rights to have access to the Security tab.How about I had such directory on USB media? USB drivers are not loaded in Safe mode...
Yes, that is a lot more sane than dual booting Linux for the express purpose of deleting a file you don't have permissions for.
Your BIOS doesn't support USB like just about everyone else?
I have never had an issue.
How did you think your keyboard and mouse would work?
-
@m0ffx said:
So, I can't delete a file even though I'm Admin/m0ffx Home Box, because I don't own it. But I can take ownership of it, and then I can delete it! I'm sorry, but What. The. Fuck. It's a bit like having the only key to a door, but anyone can change the lock barrel to one that takes their key.
Exactly. Because the 'you' who created the file at work is NOT the same 'you' that wants to read the file at home. I'll agree it might be counterintuitive, but it's the reality of NTFS. Windows is just doing what it's been programmed to do - denying access to a file by a user who is not the file's owner. As such, taking ownership of the file with your home account IS the only way to get around this. Or, you change try changing the permissions on the file to grant Everyone/Full Control. I can't remember if NTFS will deny that on a "foreign" file, but you could do that at work/school before taking the file home.
Since you bring up locks, would you expect the key to the front door at
work to also open the front door of your house? I wouldn't.@m0ffx said:
It doesn't actually do anything except put an extra step in the process of getting in, or of deleting a file.
It's called security. Anything to do with security is a tradeoff. In this case, an extra step in accessing your files. The payoff is a secure file system that gives you the ability to lock things off from people. If NTFS was truly sadistic with this ownership business, it'd deny your home admin account the right to take ownership in the first place. Then you'd be truly screwed.
I'll agree that for a simple case like this, NTFS is imposing a high burden on some simple file sharing between two machines, but up until XP came out, NTFS was essentially the playground of businesses, which generally do want the security options and abilities it brings to the table.
Maybe the next version of Vista, or XP 2, or whatever they end up releasing next, can be set to let machines running a "home" version of the OS have an Admin account that can bypass these restrictions. Or maybe put in a registry key that says "let Admin users do whatever they want without confirmation". But for now you're stuck. With the extra step.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Your BIOS doesn't support USB like just about everyone else?
I have never had an issue.
How did you think your keyboard and mouse would work?
Umm... And you are telling me that support for usb storage is available in spite the fact that Safe mode should not load any drivers and any devices except the essential ones? I confess I haven't needed to do that. I will try tho next time I boot my work machine. Now you have awakened my curiosity...
/me learns by being proven wrong you know. Best way.
marcB: An extra step in gaining access provides nothing in security. That was the whole essence of the argument... Do tell a case scenario when this extra step would hinder one with dishonest intent?
-
@death said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Your BIOS doesn't support USB like just about everyone else?
I have never had an issue.
How did you think your keyboard and mouse would work?
Umm... And you are telling me that support for usb storage is available in spite the fact that Safe mode should not load any drivers and any devices except the essential ones? I confess I haven't needed to do that. I will try tho next time I boot my work machine. Now you have awakened my curiosity...
/me learns by being proven wrong you know. Best way.
marcB: An extra step in gaining access provides nothing in security. That was the whole essence of the argument... Do tell a case scenario when this extra step would hinder one with dishonest intent?
I can't say it will work every USB harddrive driver, but USB support is present in most modern motherboards. And I know have done this in the past and had no major difficulties.
Also, neither I, nor MarcB are arguing that NTFS was designed the way it was to provide security in case you move the harddrive to another machine. However this extra step is the byproduct of the security NTFS provides. We are both arguing this means it is not broken, and if you know what you are doing you can get right around it. But it does add an extra step, and that COULD potentially be a blessing in rare, limited cases. (Idiot user: "Who put all this crap on my HD?" Delete "Access denied? Wtf? Wait a minute this isn't my HD!") It is a stretch, but this could be seen as a positive reason.
Since I know how to change the owner of a file this is not a hindrance at all.
All these stretches and extreme cases are drifting way away from the original argument of dlikhten saying Windows sucks and is broken for this behavior. This is part of the design. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Format your portable HD in FAT32 and forget about NTFS.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I can't say it will work every USB harddrive driver, but USB support is present in most modern motherboards. And I know have done this in the past and had no major difficulties.
Windows does not use BIOS to access hard drives.
-
@ender said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I can't say it will work every USB harddrive driver, but USB support is present in most modern motherboards. And I know have done this in the past and had no major difficulties.
Windows does not use BIOS to access hard drives.Wrong. You can use a USB harddrive in safe mode. I had done it in the past with problem PCs for other people. I was just curious about whether this would work on my new 500GB WD MyBook. It does. Boots right up, HD is available.
Screenshot available upon request.
Want to try again?
-
Eh, might as well post it since the work is done. (yes, I removed the file names in the background)
[URL=http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=safemodeusbhduz5.png][IMG]http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5820/safemodeusbhduz5.th.png[/IMG][/URL]
..And yes, it is formatted in NTFS.
-
@death said:
How about I had such directory on USB media? USB drivers are not loaded in Safe mode...
Yes, they are, otherwise most anyone with a modern setup will be staring at a safe mode desktop without a useable keyboard or mouse. Really useful... I guess they can still poke the power button and hope it shuts the system down. Perhaps the USB drivers for hardware irrelevant to safe mode won't get loaded, like USB speakers or microphones or scanners, but keyboard/mouse/mass storage drivers WILL be loaded. They're required for most any system to function properly, no matter what mode you boot it up in.
@ender said:
Windows does not use BIOS to access hard drives.
Nowhere did MsP say that Windows did. Saying a motherboard supports USB in no way implies that Windows uses BIOS. In fact, all versions of Windows from NT onwards (NT3, NT4, 2k, XP, 2k3, Vista) cannot use the bios except for the VERY early stages of booting up. The PC BIOS is a purely 16bit real mode beast, and would utterly hose performance AND security on any 32bit OS that calls out to it. Case in point, try formatting a floppy in Win9x in the background and try to do anything else on the machine... Win9x calls the BIOS floppy routines and while the BIOS code is running, everything else in Windows grinds to a halt.
@death said:
marcB: An extra step in gaining access provides nothing in security.
That was the whole essence of the argument... Do tell a case scenario
when this extra step would hinder one with dishonest intent?Can't come up with one for the ownership/permissions, business, but I'll call your attention to the file deletion confirmation popup the recycle bin uses. I can see someone going "OMGWTFBBQ I dragged a file to the trash can and Windows isn't deleting it!!!!111!!11111one" because of the popup confirmation. One extra step there, saves a LOT of grief when you mistakenly try to delete a critical file.
Just because I can't think of a particular reason doesn't mean the extra step is useless. Like with all security, there's times and places where it's appropriate. And like I said in an earlier re-re-re-re-reply to this thread, in m0ffx's particular scenario, it is a hindrance. But one counter-example does not invalidate the theory behind all of this. Microsoft built NTFS with a global market in mind, and if we eliminate m0ffx and everyone else with this particular "problem" from the list, that leaves
- ~50% of the market that wants the feature
- 49.9999999% that couldn't care less, as long as Solitaire works and pogo.com is accessible
- 0.0000001% that complains here and get smacked down by people who know more about it than they do
Also, it was pointed out elsewhere in this thread that if you've got "dishonest intent", i.e. you stole a drive from a server at work and want to get at some juicy data on it, then you've already got the drive in your grubby mitts. Any security Windows could provide is irrelevant, as you don't need Windows to access the data on that drive. Even if whatever OS you plug the drive into doesn't support even read-only NTFS, you can still slurp sectors off the drive and bypass NTFS in its entirety.
-
@MarcB said:
Can't come up with one for the ownership/permissions, business, but I'll call your attention to the file deletion confirmation popup the recycle bin uses. I can see someone going "OMGWTFBBQ I dragged a file to the trash can and Windows isn't deleting it!!!!111!!11111one" because of the popup confirmation. One extra step there, saves a LOT of grief when you mistakenly try to delete a critical file.
Just because I can't think of a particular reason doesn't mean the extra step is useless. Like with all security, there's times and places where it's appropriate. And like I said in an earlier re-re-re-re-reply to this thread, in m0ffx's particular scenario, it is a hindrance. But one counter-example does not invalidate the theory behind all of this. Microsoft built NTFS with a global market in mind, and if we eliminate m0ffx and everyone else with this particular "problem" from the list, that leaves
- ~50% of the market that wants the feature
- 49.9999999% that couldn't care less, as long as Solitaire works and pogo.com is accessible
- 0.0000001% that complains here and get smacked down by people who know more about it than they do
Also, it was pointed out elsewhere in this thread that if you've got "dishonest intent", i.e. you stole a drive from a server at work and want to get at some juicy data on it, then you've already got the drive in your grubby mitts. Any security Windows could provide is irrelevant, as you don't need Windows to access the data on that drive. Even if whatever OS you plug the drive into doesn't support even read-only NTFS, you can still slurp sectors off the drive and bypass NTFS in its entirety.
Not to mention if you have the hard drive in your possession and mounted on your computer, file encryption can be cracked as well.
There is nothing like unlimited time to overcome security.
-
Oh well... I'll console myself with a knowing that I know a few more Windows tricks than I did before I did. You do understand you just repeated something I said 2 pages ago as the very first thing? That physical security is first and when the drive is removed from where it resides you are screwed anyway.
It is not a feature. It may not be a bug, but it certainly is a system design oversight. NTFS was not meant to be moved from one box to another. Fair enough. Then why has M$ failed to provide something that is? Something modern, without the limitations of FAT32, a descendant for it perhaps? For the price that windows costs expecting a fully functional, hack free, general purpose and sensible system is reasonable, but that is not the case. No. Instead they pitch on us Vista, a clearly immature and miss targeted product...
And MarcB, FYI, you failed to bring the example because your assertion that this is for security is wrong. This is a side-effect of a system that does not trust its own admins. Why it does not? Because user by default is admin. And user by default is stupid.. Simple as that. And this devaluation of admin in turn is a result of a multiuser system trying to keep backward compatibility to single user one, legacy of 98. Offsprings of Unix are free from that burden and sin because they were made for multiuser world and have always had admins separate from users .
-
@MarcB said:
Your argument is an appeal to belief.Microsoft built NTFS with a global market in mind, and if we eliminate m0ffx and everyone else with this particular "problem" from the list, that leaves
- ~50% of the market that wants the feature
- 49.9999999% that couldn't care less, as long as Solitaire works and pogo.com is accessible
-
@death said:
Oh well... I'll console myself with a knowing that I know a few more Windows tricks than I did before I did.
Almost thought you finally came to your senses and realized the argument you are making just doesn't make any sense...
@death said:
You do understand you just repeated something I said 2 pages ago as the very first thing? That physical security is first and when the drive is removed from where it resides you are screwed anyway.
Everyone disclosed from the start that this was true. Nobody cares. It is not what the argument was about.
@death said:
It is not a feature. It may not be a bug, but it certainly is a system design oversight. NTFS was not meant to be moved from one box to another. Fair enough. Then why has M$ failed to provide something that is? Something modern, without the limitations of FAT32, a descendant for it perhaps? For the price that windows costs expecting a fully functional, hack free, general purpose and sensible system is reasonable, but that is not the case. No. Instead they pitch on us Vista, a clearly immature and miss targeted product...
And MarcB, FYI, you failed to bring the example because your
assertion that this is for security is wrong. This is a side-effect of
a system that does not trust its own admins. Why it does not? Because
user by default is admin. And user by default is stupid.. Simple as
that. And this devaluation of admin in turn is a result of a multiuser
system trying to keep backward compatibility to single user one, legacy
of 98. Offsprings of Unix are free from that burden and sin because
they were made for multiuser world and have always had admins separate
from users .It IS a feature. It is how NTFS was designed. I could drive a car that has no ABS brakes. I could lock up the brakes. I could get into an accident. I could then blame the car.
You know what that would make me? Stupid.
Just because you don't understand how something works, or don't agree with it, doesn't change the way it works. It doesn't make it wrong. My argument from the start has been this is not a flaw in design. It is the way NTFS is designed. It has the ability to tell machines from users from domain inside its file level security. This is the way NTFS has always been. Many people who use it would say that is a good thing. I am sure many mush smarter individuals than me could proivde some examples. All your examples of why this could be a bad thing have failed. Now you resort back to general accusations and flinging ignorant statements. As far as security? No, I don't think it provides much, if any barrier. But it sure stopped dlikhten dead on his tracks through Windows.
The "I love Linux, anything that doesn't work like it must suck" argument is just old, and shows extreme ignorance.
Fact: NTFS was designed this way.
Fact: It would be very hard to find a case where this behavior would cause any unwanted side effects.
Fact: If you actually know what your doing, this is hardly even an issue.
Fact: While this arguably may not have any major security advantages that any of us know about, it has more features and functionality than Linux. I know as an admin I want the power to tell the filesystem WHICH admins get privileges over my stuff. Local admin on boxa is not the same as local admin on boxb. If I want all the admins to have that power, I throw them all in the admin group, and let the group have the permissions. And if someone takes the data home, and has a permission issue? I know they can take ownership in a few mouse clicks, and solve the issue.
But I am sure you have never had to chown or chmod files you have introduced onto you *nix box...
Oh, and 2k, XP and Vista (and even arguably before 2k, but that is another argument) you have easily been able to run as non admin. Sure the third party software would often experience problems... but that is why you have the command 'runas'. It is available on the command line, and on the context menu. I cannot remember the last time I didn't have to use sudo to install something either.
If you run Windows as admin, that is YOUR deficiency. Don't blame MS.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Fact: It would be very hard to find a case where this behavior would cause any unwanted side effects.
Actually it's a bloody disaster when you're trying to deploy disk image backup over a large number of homogenous workstations. Every large site has to implement tortuous workarounds.
Fact: While this arguably may not have any major security advantages
that any of us know about, it has more features and functionality than
Linux. I know as an admin I want the power to tell the filesystem WHICH
admins get privileges over my stuff.You don't have it. Deal.
This endless brandishing of the MS marketing party line is really very boring. Go away.
-
@asuffield said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Fact: It would be very hard to find a case where this behavior would cause any unwanted side effects.
Actually it's a bloody disaster when you're trying to deploy disk image backup over a large number of homogenous workstations. Every large site has to implement tortuous workarounds.
Explain. I have not had this issue, and I have been a part of many roll outs.
If you want to roll out many desktops at one time and keep them in sync in terms of patches/upgrade/software:
http://www.microsoft.com/smserver/default.mspx
That would be the best choice for a large site.
There is also:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/desktopdeployment/bb892869.aspx
Yes, there are a lot of problems with xcopy deployment, or 'ghost' image deployment. If there are 'large sites' having problems with deploying third party images, they clearly haven't done their homework.
@asuffield said:
Fact: While this arguably may not have any major security advantages
that any of us know about, it has more features and functionality than
Linux. I know as an admin I want the power to tell the filesystem WHICH
admins get privileges over my stuff.You don't have it. Deal.
This endless brandishing of the MS marketing party line is really very boring. Go away.
The endless bashing of MS for no reason is really very boring. Go away.
-
My argument from the start has been this is not a flaw in design. It is the way NTFS is designed.
This sentence doesn't make any sense. Those are not mutually exclusive.The "I love Linux, anything that doesn't work like it must suck" argument is just old, and shows extreme ignorance.
However the "*nix is an example of how something can be done correctly" argument isn't.Fact: It would be very hard to find a case where this behavior would cause any unwanted side effects.
Having to explicitly take ownership of files that you should have been able to access in the first place.And if someone takes the data home, and has a permission issue? I know they can take ownership in a few mouse clicks, and solve the issue.
This step should not be necessary; it is a design flaw. Windows is not giving the administrator as much power as they should have.But I am sure you have never had to chown or chmod files you have introduced onto you *nix box...
Not if all I needed to do was access them from a root account, no.I cannot remember the last time I didn't have to use sudo to install something either.
Try installing something into your home directory next time. Windows is so horribly convoluted, this is impossible.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Not to mention if you have the hard drive in your possession and mounted on your computer, file encryption can be cracked as well.
There is nothing like unlimited time to overcome security.
Disagree. Encryption strong enough to be uncrackable by brute force within thousands of years (even taking into account Moore's Law) can be had with just a few thousand bits in the key. Of course you might still be able to nick the key, or break it if a weakness is found in the algorithm, or use a quantum computer, or something even more exotic like a computer with a time machine to send the answer back in time. But with predicted future capabilities (ie Moore's Law) you could still be talking at the least longer than your lifetime.
