I read keep up on the latest Slashdot feeds most days. They provide a way for me to gauge how others feel about various tech topics. From time to time they have some really great Q&As.
A lot of the time they seem to pick on a certain software company, and purposely post snippets of articles or blog posts in a way that creates negative impressions. This morning they really irked me by posting this snippet of article
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/27/2013215
This is originally from this post:
http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/ireboot-and-working-around-uac-limitations/ (You can find the quoted section at the very bottom)
To summarize the people at Neosmart had to recode an application to work properly with Vista's security model, and then promptly state the Vista's security model is flawed. There are some great comments posted back on Slashdot where people actually defend Vista which I would agree is performing as designed, forcing the Software company to redesign the application to requite elevated permission during install, but not need to escalate permissions once the application is installed. They achieve this by following best practices surrounding application design.
My issue is that once again one small comment is overshadowing the larger issue, which I would consider a positive, and that gets widely consumed by the masses via a conduit like Slashdot. What do you think?
Daniel Nerenberg
LazyAdmin
MCT,MCSE,MCTS,MCITP