Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Lastly, also on the same issue, people's major complaint is
> that installtion in Linux _is not the same as_ installation
> in Windows.
> "I can't find control panel..."
> "I can't double-click to run this (untrusted) file I have
> just downloaded..."
> For all we know this could be an 'rm -rf /' script, which
> of course will run with the user logged in with Admin
> privileges (how else can a Windows user get anything
In the Windows operating environment, Administrator is an
expected operating mode for successful application operations:
| I have tried a couple times to set up a Windows XP computer
| for use by a family, creating Administrator class userids
| for the parents and restricted userids for children. Both
| cases failed because there were too many programs that did
| not function correctly when run by a restricted Windows
| user (more details here). While Linux has supported the
| concept of root and restricted users from the get-go, this
| is a relatively new thing to Windows. It will be a long
| time before all Windows software is designed to be used by
| a restricted user. Until then, viruses and malware will
| have free reign on Windows machines. Certainly software
| written for Windows 95, 98 and Me expects total system
| access and may not work when run from a restricted userid.
I found this to be true. Unfortunately, many applications in
Windows XP require operating with Administrator privileges.
This is why in XP Home Edition, I operate as Administrator.
Levels are restrictive enough in Home Ed, that one cannot simply
operate as User. Installation of browser plug-ins and plug-in
files require Administrator, same with game play.
However, I acknowledge that Mr. "Vista can operate
satisfactorially with significantly less than what Microsoft
recommends" and "security is a binary issue" (oops! "concern")
will tend to disagree.