To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Which are exactly the ONLY use cases for UAC, too.
True, but MS failed to separate the user completely from the underlying system. E.g in Vista there was a mix of user files and global files on the desktop. While UAC responded correctly to actions which required elevated privileges, the context in which these prompts occured were illogical.
When I'm messing about on my own desktop or in my own user folder, I don't want to see privilege escalation prompts. What is in my account, should be my files with permissions set to my privilege level.
Vista's UAC was right on the money in the need for privelege escalation for certain actions, but Vista failed to cleanly separate the users own environment from the system. Which resulted in vexing prompts which seemed to make no sense.
Most of the problems with UAC trace back to the fact that they're trying to use a privilege-escalation-based security system with an account that already has administrator rights.
In most Linux systems, you'll log in as an unprivileged user. When you need to do something sensitive, you'll use sudo to run a process as root that will perform the task you want done. Once you run a process ass root... it's root, no more questions asked.
In Vista, you're a privileged user by default. UAC guards certain functions that even the privileged user cannot perform without authorization. UAC will therefore annoy you every time you perform that action, even if you're doing it multiple times from within one process that you've already authorized once.
That's the big problem, IMHO. If Vista had used a Linuxy model, where you weren't privileged by default, you only ever had to escalate a process once, and once you where privileged, the security system wouldn't ask you any more questions, then that approach would've worked fine. The big problem is that you can take pains to run a process as root... and UAC will still whine at you, possibly repeatedly.





Member since:
2009-02-11
No, it's not. In OS X (and linux afaik) you only need to sudo when installing something, when you mess with protected files and when you change system setings. I can't understand why people keep saying that a system needing administrative rights to do the simplest things is a good thing.
In my opinion UAC is not only annoying, but also ineffective. Given enough false positives, users will start ignoring it. And since false positives are the only thing I've ever seen from UAC that's what everybody is doing. If it would fire up only once a month (when needed), then a user wouldn't be so eager to press continue.