Windows Vista WTF
-
@aythun said:
Try installing something into your home directory next time. Windows is so horribly convoluted, this is impossible.
In fairness, that's a mix of culpability for Windows and the program maker. The program maker CAN make it installable into the home directory, as long as they then do not write anything to the registry (or other locations a non-admin user can't write to). But if there was no registry then I suspect many more applications could successfully install as non-admin.
Also, it would more often be desired by the admin to PREVENT users installing their own software. How could this be done on either Windows or Linux? The only thing I can think of for Linux is a program to monitor the file permissions of files in the user's home, and chmod -x them. Any better solutions?
-
@m0ffx said:
Also, it would more often be desired by the admin to PREVENT users installing their own software. How could this be done on either Windows or Linux? The only thing I can think of for Linux is a program to monitor the file permissions of files in the user's home, and chmod -x them. Any better solutions?
Stick the home directories onto their own file system and mount it with the NOEXEC flag.
-
@aythun said:
This step should not be necessary; it is a design flaw. Windows is not giving the administrator as much power as they should have.
Windows is giving the Admin account all the permissions it needs - to take ownership of the files and from there do whatever it wants. You HAVE to get it through your head that NTFS is designed with network permissions in mind. Admin account on Box A does not imply that an Admin on Box B has the rights to access a file with Box A's permissions bits set on it. If that were the case, a Domain admin in Domain C could go and happily modify files in Domain D with impunity.
In otherwords, an Admin in the janitorial department would have total control over all the files in Payroll. Big pay raises for all the broom pushers. Woohoo!
Just because we're doing the file transfer via an external USB drive does NOT negate the fact that this is exactly what NTFS is designed to prevent.
-
@MarcB said:
Just because we're doing the file transfer via an external USB drive does NOT negate the fact that this is exactly what NTFS is designed to prevent.
It does. I'm going to assume you can't simply "take ownership" the same way over a network share -- so why should you have to take ownership at all for locally mounted media?
-
@m0ffx said:
In
Actually, non-admin users can write to Registry just fine - after all, Registry keys have permissions just like files and directories do, and each user has his own personal tree in Registry, which should be used by applications to store per-user settings.
fairness, that's a mix of culpability for Windows and the program
maker. The program maker CAN make it installable into the home
directory, as long as they then do not write anything to the registry
(or other locations a non-admin user can't write to). But if there was
no registry then I suspect many more applications could successfully
install as non-admin.
-
@aythun said:
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.
@aythun said:
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.
I might consider that if that had any relevance to this discussion. No one has said they wish NTFS was different or anything else. They have only stated Windows and NTFS are wrong. Including you.
@aythun said:
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.
This statement is only opinion and your expectation of Windows working like Linux.
@aythun said:
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.
This is not a design flaw. It is part of the design for a reason. It has been explained many times now. On the next page MarcB even explains it again.
Saying this is a design flaw is erroneus, and invalidates your argument above of suggesting good things from Unix might help in the Windows world.
@aythun said:
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.
This is actually perfectly possible, assuming the program is capable of supporting this. However, you are advised not to do this. Your executables should always be installed in the program files directory, and any files the program needs change should be under documents and settings.
Have you actually used Windows before or did you just come here to argue the exact same points that have already been hashed over?
-
@aythun said:
@MarcB said:
Just because we're doing the file transfer via an external USB drive does NOT negate the fact that this is exactly what NTFS is designed to prevent.
It does. I'm going to assume you can't simply "take ownership" the same way over a network share -- so why should you have to take ownership at all for locally mounted media?Sure you can take ownership if your permissions are high enough.
Why would you assume anything different?
-
@ender said:
@m0ffx said:
In fairness, that's a mix of culpability for Windows and the program maker. The program maker CAN make it installable into the home directory, as long as they then do not write anything to the registry (or other locations a non-admin user can't write to). But if there was no registry then I suspect many more applications could successfully install as non-admin.
Actually, non-admin users can write to Registry just fine - after all, Registry keys have permissions just like files and directories do, and each user has his own personal tree in Registry, which should be used by applications to store per-user settings.Many programmers don't understand permissions and especially registry permission in Windows. Therefore, many programmers attempt to write to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE instead of HKEY_CURRENT_USER.
This would fail if the user was not privileged enough. By default, only an Administrator can write to HKLM.
Although his statement about the registry being the problem is off by a bit, this is where a lot of trouble comes from. But the problem is the programmer, not the registry.
-
@m0ffx said:
@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.
I would agree you can make some extremely awful to crack encryption, and most standard algorithms are pretty secure these days... but the fact remains that if someone has infinite time with access to your data, you better assume it is unsafe.
Encryption is great, but the first step should always be zero access. Encryption is a later barrier.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@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 had been then you would actually know what you were talking about and wouldn't be asking. You also wouldn't be promoting the well-known-broken MS "solutions". There's a reason almost nobody uses them.
-
@asuffield said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@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 had been then you would actually know what you were talking about and wouldn't be asking. You also wouldn't be promoting the well-known-broken MS "solutions". There's a reason almost nobody uses them.
Well ok then, if you can only provide abstract, vague references to issues that an anonymous group of people might have had in a situation that you can't describe the details of... I guess that kind of ends that.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Well ok then, if you can only provide abstract, vague references to issues that an anonymous group of people might have had in a situation that you can't describe the details of... I guess that kind of ends that
Arguing with somebody who is obviously being paid to promote Microsoft on web forums is a complete waste of time.
-
@m0ffx said:
@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.
It would be cheaper to just buy/steal the keys... In fact I was the criminal mind Id make sure I had the keys before going for the data:P
-
@aythun said:
@MarcB said:
Just because we're doing the file transfer via an external USB drive does NOT negate the fact that this is exactly what NTFS is designed to prevent.
It does. I'm going to assume you can't simply "take ownership" the same way over a network share -- so why should you have to take ownership at all for locally mounted media?Sure you can, if you're running as a Domain Admin, and the machine and files in question are members of that domain. But we're talking about local accounts with locally attached storage, where it's a different ball game.
No matter how you argue if it's a good idea, a bad idea, a stupid idea, a "what the hell were they smoking" idea, whatever, it's the reality of NTFS. Ownership data is physically tied together with the ID of the machine and/or domain the file originates from. What someone "expects" to happen does not imply that reality of Windows has to change itself to accomodate that idea. Just because you're now running purely locally with your Admin account and some "created elsewhere" external storage does not remove the fact that the permissions on that drive don't match what's set up locally. Of course Windows will complain that you don't have the rights to trash those files. They're not YOUR files. But you CAN make them your own, so why bitch about having to click the mouse a couple extra times? At least you have the opportunity to do so. Windows could just reject the external storage completely, because it doesn't have any of its own digital DNA on it.
-
@asuffield said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Well ok then, if you can only provide abstract, vague references to issues that an anonymous group of people might have had in a situation that you can't describe the details of... I guess that kind of ends that
Arguing with somebody who is obviously being paid to promote Microsoft on web forums is a complete waste of time.
So if your bashing doesn't work because someone asks you to back it up with details you try and make people believe they are paid by MS?
Wow.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
But I am sure you have never had to chown or chmod files you have introduced onto you *nix box...
Want to bet? And guess what I find a total WTF? Windows does not have CHOWN replacement for gerneral use. You can't GIVE ownership on a regular Windows, you have to pay for server to get that! That, however makes working in admin rights in/with people profiles grade a pain.
-
@pscs said:
My desktop running Vista (dual core 2.6GHz) is considerably faster than my previous one running XP (single core with hyperthreading 3.2GHz). OK, it has a much faster graphics card on it as well.This is a joke, right? Comparing Vista on a dual-core computer to XP on a single core is a WTF all by itself.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these 'Vista is half the speed of XP' benchmarks are done on low-end PCs with the 'eye candy options' all turned on and then are testing UI stuff.
As long as you compare Vista and XP on identical hardware, the "Vista is slow" complaint is valid.
I have my computer set up with removable hard drives. By swapping out hard drives I have been able to compare Windows XP and Vista running on identical hardware (including same brand/model hard drives). Even after doing some major tweaking on Vista and turning off every unnecessary function I can find, Vista is noticeably slower than XP. And this is no "low end" PC. This is on a fast dual-core machine with 4 gig RAM.
-
@death said:
And guess what I find a total WTF? Windows does not have CHOWN replacement for gerneral use. You can't GIVE ownership on a regular Windows, you have to pay for server to get that!
I've found <font face="courier new,courier">cacls /g</font> to work well enough on XP Home. Am I missing something?
-
@PJH said:
@death said:
And guess what I find a total WTF? Windows does not have CHOWN replacement for gerneral use. You can't GIVE ownership on a regular Windows, you have to pay for server to get that!
I've found <font face="courier new,courier">cacls /g</font> to work well enough on XP Home. Am I missing something?
Nope. Death is missing something though. I have sent him the link on how to change ownership on a file in Windows XP multiple times in this thread. I can't say I have ever needed to do it from the command line, but I will try cacls next time, always good to learn something new. Thanks.
Death, what is the problem with the procedure I have posted numerous times now? Your claims are wild and unfounded.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@pscs said:
My desktop running Vista (dual core 2.6GHz) is considerably faster than my previous one running XP (single core with hyperthreading 3.2GHz). OK, it has a much faster graphics card on it as well.This is a joke, right? Comparing Vista on a dual-core computer to XP on a single core is a WTF all by itself.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these 'Vista is half the speed of
XP' benchmarks are done on low-end PCs with the 'eye candy options' all
turned on and then are testing UI stuff.As long as you compare Vista and XP on identical hardware, the "Vista is slow" complaint is valid.
I have my computer set up with removable hard drives. By swapping out
hard drives I have been able to compare Windows XP and Vista running
on identical hardware (including same brand/model hard drives). Even after doing some major tweaking on Vista and turning off every unnecessary function I can find, Vista is noticeably slower than XP. And this is no "low end" PC. This is on a fast dual-core machine with 4 gig RAM.Blah blah blah, results may very, blah blah.
Who really cares?
If you don't want to have a problem with speed, then wait a little while. What is the big rush to leap to the newest OS? Usually performance enhancements start rolling out in SP2, and by then all the hardware has gotten faster to the point of no one even noticing. Not to mention you can let others work out the bugs and post them online for you to google.
It wouldn't surprise or concern me that Vista is slower than XP... That is why I will stick with XP for a little while, and when I need a new machine, I will get a decent one with Vista on it. Problem solved. This same rhetoric got played out between 98 and 2000, and 2000 and XP.
SOSNOS? (Same Old Shit New Operating System?)
-
@death said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
But I am sure you have never had to chown or chmod files you have introduced onto you *nix box...
Want to bet? ....
And are you implying you have never chown'ed a file before?
HA! I suppose you do everything as root on your box?
-
@PJH said:
I've found <font face="courier new,courier">cacls /g</font> to work well enough on XP Home. Am I missing something?
Unfortunately, cacls only modifies permissions on the file. It doesn't touch the actual ownership bits. It's entirely possible to own a file in Windows, yet have no rights to it. Of course, ownership of the file overrides whatever the ACL will say, so you can still do whatever you want with it.
There is, however, xcacls, which MS for some reason won't ship with Windows, yet is free, created by Microsoft, and does everything and more that cacls does. xcacls does have options for changing ownership from the command line.
-
I may as well add my two cents, however first I will mention that personally I prefer Linux and kin, I am also a student who has not held any professional job or any job dealing with computers other than tills. I am studying network security which has an unfortunate trend to delve into windows server 2003 every single class (save security+, A+ and Linux+).
NTFS permissions are freaking weird, add share perms and it gets confusing really fast, why the hell would I want to have such fine-grained control of the permissions? Nix perms are simple, I can see them all for every file in a directory in one command. The administrator not being naturally pervasive (in other words ignores the file perms) is actually necessary when you don't want an IT member (who would most likely be some sort of admin with possible physical access to a server) accessing a changing the pay roll data; if fact if they do change that data it should be obvious that it happened (although with allot of work you can do this without anyone knowing).
As for the half-baked argument about not being able to access files on your own NTFS external drive when moving between computers maybe you should set everyone full control? Also, *nix does the exact same thing, if I'm at box A as user 1001 and I move to box B with user 1004 I'm not going to have perms to read stuff from the drive because user 1001 owns the files not me, user 1004, I'm going to have to go into root and change the file permissions. Same effort on both fronts.
As for vista, at least they fixed it so one can run as a LUA without being so completely crippled they feel that they need to be an admin all the time. I've said it before and I'll say it again, UAC is a good thing. Once the theming service and sidebar gadgets are disabled I didn't find any other issues with vista and it's perma-betaness other than the fact that it's windows and feels awkward to do simple things (from a Linux perspective). Although XP and Vista have annoying defaults in the autorun (which XP seems to ignore my numerous requests to disable this) and accessibility fronts.
-
@MarcB said:
@PJH said:
I've found <font face="courier new,courier">cacls /g</font> to work well enough on XP Home. Am I missing something?
Unfortunately, cacls only modifies permissions on the file. It doesn't touch the actual ownership bits. It's entirely possible to own a file in Windows, yet have no rights to it. Of course, ownership of the file overrides whatever the ACL will say, so you can still do whatever you want with it.
There is, however, xcacls, which MS for some reason won't ship with Windows, yet is free, created by Microsoft, and does everything and more that cacls does. xcacls does have options for changing ownership from the command line.
Nifty. Thanks for the tip.
XCACLS filename [/E] [/G user:perm;spec] [...] [/R user [...]]
[/F] [/S] [/T]
[/P user:perm;spec [...]] [/D user:perm;spec] [...]
[/O user] [/I ENABLE/COPY/REMOVE] [/N
[/L filename] [/Q] [/DEBUG]/O user Change the Ownership to this user or group.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
It wouldn't surprise or concern me that Vista is slower than XP
It shouldn't surprise you, but it should concern you, at least a bit. If Vista is slower than XP, why is it slower? Is speed actually being traded for something else? If so what else? Or is it just a sign of sub-optimal code? In which case, is it just that MS don't make performance their priority (an attitude which in turn implies they are happy to cause the customers to incur extra hardware costs), or is it symptomatic of poor code in general.
Of course without the source code, we can't really answer these questions. Someone who works for MS could, but who's going to believe them?
-
@Lingerance said:
NTFS permissions are freaking weird, add share perms and it gets confusing really fast, why the hell would I want to have such fine-grained control of the permissions? Nix perms are simple, I can see them all for every file in a directory in one command. The administrator not being naturally pervasive (in other words ignores the file perms) is actually necessary when you don't want an IT member (who would most likely be some sort of admin with possible physical access to a server) accessing a changing the pay roll data; if fact if they do change that data it should be obvious that it happened (although with allot of work you can do this without anyone knowing).
NTFS ACLs are something I missed a lot on Linux - try giving 1 group read-only and another group read-write access with just the normal permission bits while denying everybody else access. ACLs solve this neatly, but unfortunately they aren't quite standard yet on *nix (and I've had occassional problems when random files wouldn't inherit the default ACLs from their parent directory).
-
ender, I'd have to second to that. Tho in practice the only time i needed it was when I used linux as a file-server in an NT domain. What I miss in Linux and NTFS has is separate create and delete permissions...
To my title-giver, only a nutball ex-windowser on detox would run linux as root. Sudo is all one needs to be admin in need without the risks.
-
@death said:
To my title-giver, only a nutball ex-windowser on detox would run linux as root. Sudo is all one needs to be admin in need without the risks.
Continually using sudo for no reason, and not establishing proper file permissions is just as bad as running as root all the time.
Sudo does not eliminate any risk I am aware of.
-
@m0ffx said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
It wouldn't surprise or concern me that Vista is slower than XP
It shouldn't surprise you, but it should concern you, at least a bit. If Vista is slower than XP, why is it slower? Is speed actually being traded for something else? If so what else? Or is it just a sign of sub-optimal code? In which case, is it just that MS don't make performance their priority (an attitude which in turn implies they are happy to cause the customers to incur extra hardware costs), or is it symptomatic of poor code in general.
Of course without the source code, we can't really answer these questions. Someone who works for MS could, but who's going to believe them?
No, I am sorry this does not keep me up at night.
I have never seen a newer version of any program or OS that was more efficient and could be run on less hardware. Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk, Apple, the list could go on and on.
The same argument is being had with Leopard vs Tiger for instance: http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82655
If you add a lot of functionality/features/change security/new kernel and if you came out FASTER that would be pretty significant. But I would to hear of a software company who has done this.
Software companies that understand how to make money (no one can deny MS know this...) know that you get the product out there the best you can as early as you can. Improvements can always come later.
-
Heh. Come to think of it, that would be pretty funny.
A: "Shit, this computer is getting too slow, I need an upgrade"
B: "Cool. You going to add more RAM? New motherboard/CPU?"
A: "Nope, I am going to upgrade the OS. Everything else can stay the same."
Might even make the sidebar...
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@m0ffx said:
@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.
I would agree you can make some extremely awful to crack encryption, and most standard algorithms are pretty secure these days... but the fact remains that if someone has infinite time with access to your data, you better assume it is unsafe.
Encryption is great, but the first step should always be zero access. Encryption is a later barrier.
You need to keep in mind a couple points:
1. Data has a life time in which it is useful and important to protect. Say for instance that you had a database of credit card numbers that someone stole. If he cracked the encryption in 20 years the data would be completely useless to him.
2. No one has infinite time with the data. Unless entropy can be reversed, the human race will eventually die out.
3. I don't think you are giving modern encryption enough credit. Calling it "pretty secure" seems like its a hit and miss thing. Modern encryption cannot be cracked using known methods with every computer on earth given the time of the existing universe.
4. Encryption is used to send data over insecure communication lines where it is "easy" for an attacker to get the data. Therefore that is EXACTLY what encryption is used for.
-
@ender said:
@Lingerance said:
NTFS permissions are freaking weird, add share perms and it gets confusing really fast, why the hell would I want to have such fine-grained control of the permissions? Nix perms are simple, I can see them *all* for every file in a directory in *one* command. The administrator not being naturally pervasive (in other words ignores the file perms) is actually necessary when you don't want an IT member (who would most likely be some sort of admin with possible physical access to a server) accessing a changing the pay roll data; if fact if they do change that data it should be obvious that it happened (although with allot of work you can do this without anyone knowing).
NTFS ACLs are something I missed a lot on Linux - try giving 1 group read-only and another group read-write access with just the normal permission bits while denying everybody else access.setfacl -m g:readers:rx,d:g:readers:rx,g:writers:rwx,d:g:writers:rwx
You don't need NTFS ACLs, which are an unholy child of VMS. POSIX ACLs are all that anybody could ever want, and available on most major unix implementations; they are what Microsoft was unsuccessfully trying to copy with NTFS.
-
-
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@death said:
To my title-giver, only a nutball ex-windowser on detox would run linux as root. Sudo is all one needs to be admin in need without the risks.
Continually using sudo for no reason, and not establishing proper file permissions is just as bad as running as root all the time.
Sudo does not eliminate any risk I am aware of.
It eliminates the risk of an attack through my user infecting the whole system. Using sudo for no reason makes no sense. Why would one use sudo if one can do without? As to establishing proper file file permissions... On *nix they are established by default. they can be screwed up, yes, but I wont do that, that would be too much like windows...
Oh, And while we are bitching about file handling, here is one of my biggest grievances: Why on earth cant I on a multi file copy or move when theres an error choose to do what to do with the ones already coppied? Why Cant I tell the system to just ignore the failed file or abort but keep all that is copied? That is a total WTF for me. What is your excuse to make in behalf of your masters? Or will you just reply with an insult to this to?
-
@death said:
Oh, And while we are bitching about file handling, here is one of my biggest grievances: Why on earth cant I on a multi file copy or move when theres an error choose to do what to do with the ones already coppied? Why Cant I tell the system to just ignore the failed file or abort but keep all that is copied? That is a total WTF for me.
http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/post/141371.aspx
-
@PJH said:
@death said:
Oh, And while we are bitching about file handling, here is one of my biggest grievances: Why on earth cant I on a multi file copy or move when theres an error choose to do what to do with the ones already coppied? Why Cant I tell the system to just ignore the failed file or abort but keep all that is copied? That is a total WTF for me.
http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/post/141371.aspx
If windows had a decent usable command line shell I'd call that almost a solution but it does not have it, cmd is but an excuse of a shell.Navigating with awkward cmd every time I want to make a copy is not not my idea of fun. Windows is an OS made to be used with its graphical shell and this is a deficit in that shell. And thus it is still a total WTF.
I'm an avid shell user in Linux. Ive dreamed of a day I have something like bash&Yakuake available for me in Windows... I could get bash through Cygwin, but..
-
@death said:
If windows had a decent usable command line shell <snip>
Windows is an OS made to be used with its graphical shell and this is a deficit in that shell. And thus it is still a total WTF.
Going through the process of:
A: I can't do X
B: Yes you can, you need to do Y (instead to get the same effect)
A: I don't like Y's interface. Or the interface for X.
Isn't really a valid argument as to why you can't do X.
-
@PJH said:
@death said:
If windows had a decent usable command line shell <snip>
Windows is an OS made to be used with its graphical shell and this is a deficit in that shell. And thus it is still a total WTF.
Going through the process of:
This is how I see it:
A: The main tool X for doing of operation OP1 is broken and acts like crap.
B: So? Use this tool Y for doing OP1?
A: I can do that and have done it but the X is still broken and interface to Y is hacksh and hard to use and thus also broken.
@PJH said:
Isn't really a valid argument as to why you can't do X.
But its a valid argument to say that the tool for doing X is broken. Theoretically your teeth could be repaired though your anus, but do you want to try it? I do not argue it cannot be done. If I'm desperate and xcopy would not be available I could even write my own application for that. That is not the point of the argument. From a commercial software at that price I'd expect that I can get both decent shell and sensible graphic copy operation. Such is not the case. The rest are just excuses.
-
@death said:
@PJH said:
@death said:
If windows had a decent usable command line shell <snip>
Windows is an OS made to be used with its graphical shell and this is a deficit in that shell. And thus it is still a total WTF.
Going through the process of:
This is how I see it:
A: The main tool X for doing of operation OP1 is broken and acts like crap.
B: So? Use this tool Y for doing OP1?
A: I can do that and have done it but the X is still broken and interface to Y is hacksh and hard to use and thus also broken.
@PJH said:
Isn't really a valid argument as to why you can't do X.
But its a valid argument to say that the tool for doing X is broken. Theoretically your teeth could be repaired though your anus, but do you want to try it? I do not argue it cannot be done. If I'm desperate and xcopy would not be available I could even write my own application for that. That is not the point of the argument. From a commercial software at that price I'd expect that I can get both decent shell and sensible graphic copy operation. Such is not the case. The rest are just excuses.
It really doesn't matter how many people tell you that you are being ridiculous, you will just keep bashing a product because it doesn't meet your expectations.
I wish Linux would spawn rainbows and puppy dogs from the keyboard when it boots. But it doesn't. I guess that means it sucks.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
It really doesn't matter how many people tell you that you are being ridiculous, you will just keep bashing a product because it doesn't meet your expectations.
Whose expectations should it not meet so I could have the right to criticize it? Yours? Don't make me laugh. Criticism is the only way things could ever impriove. Being blind to faults lens nothing to getting them fixed and people who do that are exactly the reason why is Vista a misguided disaster today.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I wish Linux would spawn rainbows and puppy dogs from the keyboard when it boots. But it doesn't. I guess that means it sucks.
No, it means that you are a little whiner that only whines but wont do a thing to get your puppy dogs an rainbows(FYI: for the sake of your keyboard and the puppies I thank the gods that in this reality thats not going to happen.) In Linux you have to option to always pitch in to get what you want. With Windows criticizing and as loudly as possible is all you can do.
-
@death said:
But its a valid argument to say that the tool for doing X is broken.
Of course it is valid.It just wasn't your original argument.
Your original argument was that performing {X} wasn't possible. Specifically:
@death said:
Why on earth cant I on a multi file copy or move when theres an error choose to do what to do with the ones already coppied? Why Cant I tell the system to just ignore the failed file or abort but keep all that is copied? That is a total WTF for me.
Having been shown one way {X} is indeed possible, you've subsequently (and unsubtley) changed {X} := {how X is done under a certain set of circumstances is borked} whilst trying to make it appear that it was your original argument.
IOW, I'm complaining about you changing what your TRWTF is. Sometimes called 'moving the goalposts.'
-
@death said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
It really doesn't matter how many people tell you that you are being ridiculous, you will just keep bashing a product because it doesn't meet your expectations.
Whose expectations should it not meet so I could have the right to criticize it? Yours? Don't make me laugh. Criticism is the only way things could ever impriove. Being blind to faults lens nothing to getting them fixed and people who do that are exactly the reason why is Vista a misguided disaster today.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I wish Linux would spawn rainbows and puppy dogs from the keyboard when it boots. But it doesn't. I guess that means it sucks.
No, it means that you are a little whiner that only whines but wont do a thing to get your puppy dogs an rainbows(FYI: for the sake of your keyboard and the puppies I thank the gods that in this reality thats not going to happen.) In Linux you have to option to always pitch in to get what you want. With Windows criticizing and as loudly as possible is all you can do.
You could just as easily write your own utility for copying files that gives you all the control you would like. You could do it in *nix or Windows. And in either platform you could then offer it open source and improve the community. Microsoft has even been known to take those utilities and incorporate them into releases on occasion (usually by buying the company that made it).
None of your arguments have held any water so far. But you just keep altering them, or making new ones. I think we can all see who is whining here.
-
@PJH said:
@death said:
Why on earth cant I on a multi file copy or move when theres an error choose to do what to do with the ones already coppied? Why Cant I tell the system to just ignore the failed file or abort but keep all that is copied? That is a total WTF for me.
Having been shown one way {X} is indeed possible, you've subsequently (and unsubtley) changed {X} := {how X is done under a certain set of circumstances is borked} whilst trying to make it appear that it was your original argument.
I was from the start talking about the normal, every day, graphic default file copy functionality of windows that was the WTF and never gave any reason to assume otherwise. I presumed that you knew what I was referring to. Now I see this was not the case.
@PJH said:
IOW, I'm complaining about you changing what your TRWTF is. Sometimes called 'moving the goalposts.'
My total WTF at windows file copy(to those that need it spelled out: the graphic one) has not changed just because you misinterpreted it, so its either you who's moving them or you mind deceived you into believing they were elsewhere.
.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
You could just as easily write your own utility for copying files that gives you all the control you would like. You could do it in *nix or Windows. And in either platform you could then offer it open source and improve the community. Microsoft has even been known to take those utilities and incorporate them into releases on occasion (usually by buying the company that made it).
Please do. Make a lot of money and replace the file copy operation in Windows explorer by selling it to them. I say I expect this functionality in the price of XP today(not to mention Vista). It would make a nice powertoy ie.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
None of your arguments have held any water so far. But you just keep altering them, or making new ones. I think we can all see who is whining here.
All my arguments that you have silently dropped have held. Every time you resort to insults my arguments have held. And no, this is not a pissing contest, no winners here, but if it were then yes, I'd say its pretty obvious too that I'm winning.
-
@death said:
Please do. Make a lot of money and replace the file copy operation in Windows explorer by selling it to them. I say I expect this functionality in the price of XP today(not to mention Vista). It would make a nice powertoy ie.
I have no problem copying files in Windows, and I have no need to make it any easier. Yes, there are issues involved, but nothing that prevents me from getting my job done. Certainly nothing I would waste this much time debating about in a forum. With the time you spent whining about it, you could have gotten a good project started.
@death said:All my arguments that you have silently dropped have held. Every time you resort to insults my arguments have held. And no, this is not a pissing contest, no winners here, but if it were then yes, I'd say its pretty obvious too that I'm winning.
I know of no arguments I have 'silently dropped'. AFAIK I have addressed all of them. I haven't seen one yet that made any sense, and wasn't just whining. And I haven't insulted you about any of these issues. The only time I insulted you was during your philosophical lecture on "learning to learn is a waste of time" in which you used many insults.
I wouldn't call this a contest either. But what Windows did not get explained to you again?
