On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:07:05AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:18:55AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:57:46AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > > Sven Arvidsson writes: > > > > I'm not a Windows user myself, but I hear of many Windows users who > > > > actually know that they shouldn't run as admin but are forced to do so > > > > because a lot of applications, installers and games simply will not run > > > > on an unprivileged account. > > > > > > Nothing forces them to run those applications. If they really cared about > > > security they would refuse to buy such programs and the publishers would > > > get the message. > > > > True, but quite often there is no choice. For example, at the local > > primary school there is quite a lot of educational software which comes > > under this umbrella. Although to be fair, I think it may be the way the > > security features of the admin account are setup. The average teacher is > > not aware of, or actually has time to learn about, security with regards > > to installing purchased educational software. > > I'd actually appreciate it if aptitude (or other such) would distinguish > between packages whose use requires root permissions (whether by a > setuid or not) and those that don't, and ask whether this is really > intended.
Just to be clear I was talking about Windows where the network etc is normally under contract and hence the average Joe can't just go round nilly willy changing things. Well that is IMO :-) -- Chris. ====== " ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness." Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
