Vista User Accounts

[Hae-Yu]

In Vista, MS is supposedly moving to a new user paradigm which will be very similar to Unix's model. It's called Least User Access or, now, User Account Control (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/feat/secfeat.mspx).

Basically users will be logged in with the least privileges needed. The default account is a user account, not administrator. Should something require elevation, it will prompt for admin name/ pass. This sounds fine on paper.

On Sun systems, logging in as root is fairly painless. Using a simple window manager like OLWM, you can have one window open as a regular user, another as a superuser, and so on - each window in its own environment. It works pretty seamlessly.

In Vista, EVERY report says that the implementation is severely flawed nagware. While creating a new PC, interminable prompts for admin access drive most to insanity.

The MS Site linked above gives me the following quote:
For example, in the enterprise context, a mobile laptop user will be able to set a WEP key to attach to a secure wireless network, install a printer, download and install application updates, setup and configure a Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection, and perform many other standard tasks, all while running as a non-administrator.

While this sounds fine, I have a hard time believing it will be this painless. It is virtually impossible to work under XP without admin rights. I discovered that over the last couple of hours.

If anything, this single implementation is what will make or break Vista. Maybe the vast amount of negative press will pressure MS into fixing it.

[zero]

I've been reading a decent number of Vista articles and I also heard how awful their security model is. It does need reworking, but why couldn't they copy what Unix/Linux/BSD and OSX do, just allow you to give credentials when needed WITHOUT logging out and back in as another user. But they had to be different and offer nag screens for every single little operation that needs priveliges. I read a review of someone trying to install Firefox in Vista. The installation wasn't too bad, but he had to go through like 6 dialog boxes just to delete the fucking install file off of his desktop.

Vista is horribly broken and mere shadow of what was promised. I hope Vista bombs and will be the last OS that MS releases.

[Hae-Yu]

I don't hope it bombs. I hope it works and thrives.

I certainly don't want Apple's solution. That's the old evil way. Steve is big on the lock in. Witness iPod and iTunes. He wants to be your exclusive end-to-end solution. It's only recently that they've opened up.

On the other end, the alt OS spectrum is convoluted. 2 big points:
-Should application developers get behind KDE, Gnome, or some other WM?
-If nVidia creates a driver, they have to create wrappers for every major Linux distro, BSD, Ubuntu (forked off BSD now), and Unix? What about Yellowtab and Amiga?

No one wants to recode their app for every point release that breaks something. You may have 2, 3, 10 distros to support, none with synchronized release dates. Imagine trying to buy the right combination of hardware and software that works.

By going either route you are jumping from an ocean of compatibility to small lakes and pools. People complain about vendor lock-in, but using MS, you have the widest software and hardware compatibility. Linux may be ported to every CPU created, but if can't provide all the functionality my peripherals require, it's no good to me. I don't need it to work on Alpha. I need my printer to work - with all the options.

I like the PC world Wintel built.

In any case, I'll criticize in the hope they will fix the problems in Vista. Otherwise, a Mac may be my only solution.
Also, that's just my opinion. OS discussions can be touchy but I don't mean to offend if something touched a nerve.