On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 19:04, Conrad Newton wrote: > >From Herman Robak on Saturday, 2004-12-04 at 17:32:32 +0100:
> > Of course, a system that very often does not Do What You > > Mean is not really useable. If you want something useable, > > get a Mac! > > You describe an ironic state of affairs. The typical Windows user is > less security aware and less computer literate than the typical Linux > user, but his system requires him to be *more* aware. That's not good. Sure it's bad. But Windows has a long history of offering what users ask for, not what is good for them. Until around 2000, few users asked for more security. They wanted more features and ease of use, period. Patronising the users in cuddly (Mac) or stern (Linux) ways won't cut it if you want to totally own the market. (Let the car analogies ensue...) > > Final rant: Whatever the user interface pundits may say > > about "open" and "run" being equivalent, don't listen!!! > > It makes a hell of a difference whether that attachment > > is supposed to be "run" (executed) or "opened" (displayed)! > > Do people really say that they are equivalent? Yes. Mac pundits would say it with pride. Fortunately, the Mac has even fewer ways than Linux to get a file from the Net executed. Modern Mac applications are folders, distributed as disk images. Older Mac apps were Mac files (which have two "forks"; one for data and another for metadata) which would not survive over FTP, HTTP or being copied via machines that were not Macs. They had to be packed into archives. That left only few entry points: The archive tools (before) and the image automounter (now). > I did not realize that things were that bad. It would not be bad if the user did not have to care about it (see above). On Windows they really have to care! > Does XP distinguish between the two? For local files, you don't get any dialog asking you questions when you double-click its icon. This is the same in GNOME and KDE, and it is expected. MSIE has said something about "execute" in the download dialog for several years. However, the button always says "open". Only Mozilla says "Run", when it recognises the file as an executable. > Can you still have an executable attachment > run automatically, with modern versions of Windows? That depends on the application. The application has to check itself. If it hands over unknown file types to the "system shell" (like the system is designed for), it can be run as soon as the user clicks "open". MSIE and Outlook have been locked down a lot lately, especially Outlook: New versions of Outlook will only save attachments to disk. By default, the user has execution rights on all his files on Windows. Hence, "open" can mean "run", and the OS won't interfere. Security professionals and sysadmins often change this. Most ordinary users don't. -- Herman Robak
