Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
-
-
-
FFS, must everything live in the gutter here?
-
FFS, must everything live in the gutter here?
Don't start where you don't want to end up. :\P
Oh look. :\) works like you'd expect but :\p doesn't work the same way. Brillant.
Take it away, @discoursebot.
-
Last day without Discourse Bugs: null <t3833p705>
-
I didn't start in the gutter... I was just brought down to that level and beaten over the head with everyone else's experience.
-
I didn't start in the gutter
Well, you're the one who started talking
outabout his ass.
-
Hey dont blame arantor, this has been a dookdook thread since the beginning--if anything, he was just getting it back on topic.
-
I didn't start in the gutter... I was just brought down to that level and beaten over the head with everyone else's experience.
And yet, most people would probably say that talking about shit elevated the conversation in this thread.
-
Everybody, get in here! We're doing shit jokes now.
TL3TFY
-
And yet, most people would probably say that talking about shit elevated the conversation in this thread.
Probably, but only because of the terribly low standards of conversation.
It's not even civilised around here...
-
-
What's wobbly and hovers?
-
I blame @dookdook he started it.
To try and draw a line under it all, I think it has been decided that (delete as appropriate)
- Disabling UAC
- Windows 8
- Locking the front door
- Not locking the front door
- Diablo3
- UAC
- Windows Vista
- Bad grammar
- Grammar nazis
- Gay marriage
- Banning gay marriage
- Putting your fingers in power sockets
- Not putting your fingers in power sockets (at least once)
- Freedom Planet's voices
- Other (please specify)
<img src="/uploads/default/7704/938fc0df70bcf348.jpg" width="350" height="225">
In my humble opinion, this post should have ended the thread.
Edit: DISCOURSED.
-
talking about shit elevated the conversation in this thread.
not without a UAC popup to allow it to happen first.
-
not without a UAC popup to allow it to happen first.
Does the UAC popup happen to be its own executable somewhere? What if you set "require admin privileges" on it?
-
-
It's a shit joke in the pejorative sense only
-
So what you're saying is that we had to allow Users to Argue about Crap.
-
Users to Argue about Crap.
+ː (oh, ː is just a colon? oh, it's full of poo. That was so meta. )
-
I can tell nobody
caresis going to get it. The answer is a jellycopter.
Shit enough?
-
-
-
I'm really not sure how UAC would determine, at launch time, whether the program will in the future require elevated permissions- and if so, why.
How would you know when you launched Word whether or not the user will save a file in Program Files or not? If they do, you need to launch under the elevated token, if not, the regular one.
Emphasis mine.
This is the bit that went over my head, so I was TRWTF. I was looking at what is the program trying to do now that it needs elevated privileges, not realizing that the elevation lasts throughout the session the program is running on. Therefore, even if the program does say "Yeah, just installing BitTorrent" doesn't preclude it from doing other stuff alongside or afterwards while still running. Yikes.
Apologies to @RaceProUK and @blakeyrat for missing this point.
-
Please consider, however, that perhaps it is our expectations regarding stability that are at fault.
I would go so far as to say the expectation of having stability itself isn't at fault; the expectation that the stability will continue automagically is. There are several things marriage has in common with running a business with a business partner(s). They are:
- Common goals.
- Common agreement on how to reach those goals.
- All partners putting in their agreed-upon contributions towards reaching those goals.
- Willingness to assist each other at times when any partner, for reasons beyond their control or incidental error, is unable to hold up their side of the agreement.
The creation of the relationship has to be an ongoing activity along the lines given above. A lot of divorces/business breakups occur because of a breach of one or more of the above, or simply not establishing the above in the first place (or just as bad, assuming the other person has the same viewpoint/approach that you do).
-
DON'T DISABLE UAC, KIDS!
THREADS LIKE THIS ARE WHAT YOU'LL GET WHEN YOU DO!
I tried to submit only the above text, but got this message:
I feel deeply insulted. Dicksource has no right to validate my body.
-
I love this post, because sadly there are real people like this.
-
DON'T DISABLE UAC, KIDS!
THREADS LIKE THIS ARE WHAT YOU'LL GET WHEN YOU DO! x
-
Snort. Can't type in all caps, but one lower-case letter makes it all OK.
-
Snort. Can't type in all caps, but one lower-case letter makes it all OK.
Welcome to Discourse.
CivilizingPreventing discussions in 2020 and beyond...
-
one lower-case letter
That can be located anywhere in the body of your post, including HTML tags or the BBCode quote blocks.
Assuming they haven't changed that, of course.
-
LET'S FIND OUT!
-
Snort. Can't type in all caps, but one lower-case letter makes it all OK.
I'm glad to see you had calmed down by the end.
-
I THINK IT'S WORKING.
-
-
Snort. Can't type in all caps, but one lower-case letter makes it all OK.
OR ADD A NONBRAKING SPACE!
-
-
Does the UAC popup happen to be its own executable somewhere?
C:\Windows\System32\consent.exe
(You can check this by changing the UAC settings so it shows the popup on the current desktop)What if you set "require admin privileges" on it?
You can’t use the compatibility settings to do this since the executable is marked as compatible with the current system. Messing with its manifest to mark it as “always start as administrator” will break its signature; you might as well remove it entirely, or replace it with another binary…
-
And people are made of wood
Only if they weigh the same as a duck, in which case they're a witch
-
Ok, came back here for Windows 9 stuff and find the posts firmly entrenched in a political battle (on many, many things). It seems just about every debate under the sun has been had, so I think there's only one thing left to do now
-
I'm really not sure how UAC would determine, at launch time, whether the program will in the future require elevated permissions- and if so, why.
That's actually easy. The programmer of the program should attach a description of what privileges are required (above that of the invoking user) and why. Oh look, that's (part of) what the application manifest does… (and yes, it's sometimes really difficult; what privileges does a
CMD.EXE
batch script require and how do you attach a manifest to it?)Not sure if the reason is included in the manifest. It ought to be, but I can't spot where the description would actually go. Opportunity missed, Microsoft?
-
Not sure if the reason is included in the manifest. It ought to be, but I can't spot where the description would actually go. Opportunity missed, Microsoft?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Windows_ActiveX_security_warning_(malware).png
Filed under: They've learned otherwise..., we need a new tag cloud to attack
-
DON'T DISABLE UAC, KIDS!
THREADS LIKE THIS ARE WHAT YOU'LL GET WHEN YOU DO!<d
-
which would bring up a UAC prompt
I don't think it would.A permission denied error doesn't automatically generate a UAC dialog. The application has to actually request permission. Some newer applications probably detect a permission denied and spawn UAC appropriately, but the system doesn't do that automagically...
Another point to make is that UAC isn't the same as *nix su... UAC happens on application creation, because running programs in Windows can't change their user context like on *nix. Therefore, when permission is denied, the application has to create a new instance of itself to perform whatever action failed. If it's not designed to do that, it will just fail.
EDIT: Yay for not realizing that post was way back in the topic!
-
*nix su (or sudo) also only work for new processes.
-
Another point to make is that UAC isn't the same as *nix su... UAC happens on application creation, because running programs in Windows can't change their user context like on *nix. Therefore, when permission is denied, the application has to create a new instance of itself to perform whatever action failed. If it's not designed to do that, it will just fail.
*nix su (or sudo) also only work for new processes.
@sloosecannon got confused between su/sudo and setuid/setgid + real/effective UIDs/GIDs. The former is akin to UAC, the latter is actually more akin to all the fancy impersonation/... APIs that the Windows security API provides, but almost nobody seems to use.
-
Gah.
Yeah, setuid not su. Bleh. *nix lets you switch user context on a running process, Windows doesn't. That's what I'm trying to say...
I'm gonna go get more caffeine.
-
*nix lets you switch user context on a running process, Windows doesn't.
Then what's this for? Decoration?
-
There is a kernel limitation here, I'm sure, in that, to change users would require launching another process. But given the complexity of other features MS has implemented, I don't think it would be a huge deal to ask that, say, the file system has a way of redirecting requested write operations through an elevated proxy that requires a user to explicitly give permission a la the UAC prompt.
The current recommended solution is to spawn a new process that prompts for Elevation, and have that process handle whatever elevated function needs to occur.
For determining the need of elevation at launch, I would actually think MS would have baked something like this into .NET; it seems like unmanaged code would be the problem point. But system actions requiring elevation should provide an API for requesting elevation during execution.
They did- The Application Manifest. You can choose Don't Elevate, Always Elevated, or Elevate if the user is Admin.
The 3rd option is great for things like Regedit. Open as user, no prompt, you can change just your Current User entries. Open as an Admin, get prompted, you can also change HKLM.