On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:04:37 +1200, Stuart Fox (DSL AK)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about changing the .exe convention? Making a file
executable by it's extension probably causes a lot of
opportunities for problems, doesn't it?
Also, the magic file names, like CON and AUX
On Mon, June 21, 2004 8:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The corollary, of course, is that I.T will become more expensive because
people will have to bite the bullet and get people with more than one
skillset, or more people.
A common UI (e.g. POSIX or GNU) solves this... Diversity of systems,
The real reason for the registry is to make it difficult to copy an
application from one machine to another. In other words, it's a copy
proctection scheme. Remember in the days of Win 3.1, you could do that? It
all broke in Win95 with the registry.
now the key to transfering the application
Also, the magic file names, like CON and AUX should go away.
No way! Am I the only person who still uses copy con filename.txt to
create scripts and such at the command line? Please tell me I'm not?
CON and NULL should stay but COM, AUX and LPT should go away. i had a server in which
the
On Tuesday 22 June 2004 07:31, Aditya, ALD [ Aditya Lalit Deshmukh ] might
have typed:
CON and NULL should stay but COM, AUX and LPT should go away. i had a
server in which the script kiddes got into the ftp server and made a COM1
folder on ntfs. had been a pain in neck to rename that folder
Well, lets see, moving away from the Registry (single point of failure)
would be a good step.
this should be done the first thing, however the registry has backups and other ways
to recover from failures howevert the builtin failure machanisms are not sufficent
Separating the operating
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No way! Am I the only person who still uses copy con filename.txt to
create scripts and such at the command line? Please tell me I'm not?
I think the intent is that con as a special filename in every directory has
to go away - you'd still be
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:37:22 EDT, Todd Burroughs said:
Maybe having magic names that don't start with '/dev' (i.e., some known
prefix) is a mistake, but I think that's a minor issue.
Actually, this sub-thread is entirely about the fact that magic names aren't a minor
issue - referencing
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:52:36 MDT, Bruce Ediger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And you have to open them by path /dev/null. Just opening null won't
hurt, unless the current directory happens to be /dev.
Small nit:
Actually, this may or may not be true. There is no *inherent* magic to
the /dev
like duh... have you _not_ heard of edlin ???
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:04:37 +1200, Stuart Fox (DSL AK)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about changing the .exe convention? Making a file
executable by it's extension probably causes a lot of
opportunities for problems, doesn't it?
What would you suggest Microsoft do to improve ?
Georgi Guninski wrote:
i am replying to the whole m$ thread, nothing personal.
m$ are so bad, so it is really difficult for them to get any worse, but this
does not mean they are really getting better.
they crossed the badness point of no return()
redeisgn their products..the basic windows design is flawed and
needs reworking for one thing..:)
Michael Schaefer wrote:
What would you suggest Microsoft do to improve ?
Georgi Guninski wrote:
i am replying to the whole m$ thread, nothing personal.
m$ are so bad, so it is really difficult for
Well, lets see, moving away from the Registry (single point of failure)
would be a good step.
Separating the operating system from programs would be great, I don't
like the fact that everything and it's brother thinks it can or should
dump files into the system directory.
What else is flawed?
design that takes a complete redesign.
joe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Warren
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] M$ - so what should they do?
redeisgn their products
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:05:14AM -0400, William Warren wrote:
redeisgn their products..the basic windows design is flawed and
needs reworking for one thing..:)
This is a 100% ignition topic, but... the basic Windows design
is one of the better things about Windows. Some of the features
the
How about making it so I can secure things on my machine from family
members without having to setup a server to use Active Directory just to do
that. How about not having to pay for Exchange Server just easily use and
out of office reply. Since Outlook and Outlook Express are the default
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:52:10PM -0400, Dave D. Cawley wrote:
How about making it so I can secure things on my machine from family
members without having to setup a server to use Active Directory just to do
that. How about not having to pay for Exchange Server just easily use and
out
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Michael Schaefer wrote:
Well, lets see, moving away from the Registry (single point of failure)
would be a good step.
Separating the operating system from programs would be great, I don't
like the fact that everything and it's brother thinks it can or should
dump files
Schaefer
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 12:50 PM
To: William Warren
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] M$ - so what should they do?
Well, lets see, moving away from the Registry (single point of failure)
would be a good step.
Separating the operating system from programs would be great, I
PROTECTED]; William Warren
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] M$ - so what should they do?
How about making it so I can secure things on my machine from family
members without having to setup a server to use Active Directory just to do
that. How about not having to pay
I suggest they change the double click to a tripple click, and while we
are at it how about making the default desktop walpaper something other
than light blue.
-KF
How about changing the .exe convention? Making a file executable by
it's extension probably causes a lot of opportunities for
On Mon, June 21, 2004 12:07 pm, joe said:
For the first one, what do you propose as an answer? Obviously going to a
bunch of separate text files you have to configure gets away from that
single point of failure of a single registry but adds all sorts of
management issues and having to chase
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:52:09 EDT, Michael Schaefer said:
What would you suggest Microsoft do to improve ?
They will improve if and only if actually improving (as opposed to making
noises about improving) makes financial sense.
pgpf9HZlZSrfm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
How about changing the .exe convention? Making a file
executable by it's extension probably causes a lot of
opportunities for problems, doesn't it?
Also, the magic file names, like CON and AUX should go away.
No way! Am I the only person who still uses copy con filename.txt to
[SNIP}
The second one, I concur completely, get the App stuff out of the Windows
folders.
Which includes IE.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
~~
Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get
]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Georgi Guninski
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] M$ - so what should they do?
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:52:09 EDT, Michael Schaefer said:
What would you suggest Microsoft do to improve ?
They will improve if and only if actually
, June 21, 2004 5:07 PM
To: joe
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] M$ - so what should they do?
[SNIP}
The second one, I concur completely, get the App stuff out of the
Windows folders.
Which includes IE.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] M$ - so what should they do?
How about changing the .exe convention? Making a file executable by it's
extension probably causes a lot of opportunities for problems, doesn't it?
Also, the magic file names
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:06:43 CDT, Ron DuFresne said:
[SNIP}
The second one, I concur completely, get the App stuff out of the Windows
folders.
Which includes IE.
Actually, just doing that one *alone* (splitting it out so it isn't entwined into
the OS) would probably do more
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:04:37 +1200, Stuart Fox (DSL AK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No way! Am I the only person who still uses copy con filename.txt to
create scripts and such at the command line? Please tell me I'm not?
I think the intent is that con as a special filename in every directory
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:33:02 EDT, joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Oh absolutely. I've said it before, they aren't coding for the common good
of the people. They are a business, to think they would make changes for any
other reason than financial gain is silly. However, without changes and
, June 21, 2004 4:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] M$ - so what should they do?
On Mon, June 21, 2004 12:07 pm, joe said:
For the first one, what do you propose as an answer? Obviously going
to a bunch of separate text files you have to configure gets away from
[SNIP}
The second one, I concur completely, get the App stuff out of the
Windows folders.
Which includes IE.
Actually, just doing that one *alone* (splitting it out so it
isn't entwined into the OS) would probably do more than
anything else. But we're not
Having all the configs as text files in /etc works fine for
Unix-like systems. You can use any editor to look at the
config - no need for some proprietary editor (regedit).
Automating config changes is as easy as writing a simple
shell script. Each config is named after its
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, just doing that one *alone* (splitting it out so it isn't entwined into
the OS) would probably do more than anything else. But we're not likely to see
that happen, not since the Microsoft witnesses swore on a Bible that IE was an
integral part of the OS
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:39:10 EDT, joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Absolutely, I posted that same message in a MS specific listserv today. My
comments were along the lines of treat it like a purchased app and set up a
new team to rebuild the app from the ground up, all new code. That way all
of
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:42:44 EDT, joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am not sure I agree with the first thing. Actually I think it helps in
that it is easier for people to know something is executable veruss having
to look at additional attributes to see if something is executable.
Which is why
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:55:55 EDT, joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You say you can use any editor to look at the config and you don't need a
proprietary editor. What you mean is you can use any editor that uses the
file system API to open and display the config files. With the registry you
can
Valdis Kletnieks said:
It's not as simple as throw it out and start again - what's feasible
for a
student's semester project or a small company's small software package
isn't as
feasible when it's one of the largest sets of intertwined code ever
written
And that's the main point - the
On Mon, June 21, 2004 6:14 pm, Stuart Fox (DSL AK) said:
You've got some valid points but there is one thing that you've overlooked
- auditing.
[...]
Having said that, I've never actually met anyone who uses the registry
auditing, but I'm sure they're out there.
I actually knew a group who
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, joe wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the first thing. Actually I think it helps in
that it is easier for people to know something is executable veruss having
to look at additional attributes to see if something is executable.
I think that making the name of a file
On Mon, June 21, 2004 3:55 pm, joe said:
I have written several registry editor type apps for customers, it is
simply another API. For me writing a text editor is the same as writing a
registry editor, in fact, the classes I put together treat them both very
similarly from code use
42 matches
Mail list logo
