OSNews

Maybe, but this looks like they went out of their way to mess this up. I know Microsoft has some security-minded people working for them, and they are probably screaming about this. But, incredibly, they are ignored. Let's just hope that security by public outcry prevails and once again convinces Microsoft's management to pull their heads from their a**es.

You're right; when I hear managers within Microsoft say that 'legacy code is an asset' - I know they've lost touch with reality. An asset as anyone knows can eventually turn into a liability. This idiotic idea of code being an asset forever simply ignores the reality of situation - it helps no one promising backwards compatibility indefinitely because it results in castrating any possible future improvements to the operating system itself. Windows in its current half-baked state is a by-product of this policy - it has nothing to do with a lack of smart people within Microsoft and everything to do with management placing unrealistic limitations in programmers on what they can do by virtue of this backwards compatibility fixation of theirs.

Edited 2009-05-15 15:21 UTC

It's more likely that they're too busy shooting rubber bands at each other than designing and coding good software. It takes too much effort to do things correctly.

Not directed to you, but why should the operating system bother the user to death to avoid disaster? Why shouldn't the UAC require a password even when the Administrator is using the machine to do certain things? The company seems to have a skewed view of how things should work to be correct and effective.

Requesting a password for OTS elevations is dangerous. Such things are VERY easily spoofed.

Edited 2009-05-15 21:55 UTC