A few questions and suggestions

[Ionic Wind Support Team]

Mike...replying to your post before you deleted it.  Then you all can stay on topic

Actually UAC is very different from linux root account control.  Vista's UAC is like the fisher price version of security.

For instance when I am using Ubuntu I only have to enter my administrative password once, and I can perform multiple tasks requiring root privileges until I am idle for a specific period of time.  If Vista had that feature you wouldn't here so many complaints.

If I open a super user shell in Ubuntu I enter the password once, and then can perform as many administrative tasks as I need without being prompted again, install multiple applications, copy files, etc.  In Vista open a cmd shell with admin rights and you still have to deal with the "allow" dialog when working with files.  It is a real pain in the ass.

Spend some time with Ubuntu, or any other modern linux Mike and you will see what I mean.  Microsoft has not given users what linux already had, they gave users a Nazi version of security.  Lets hope Windows 7 will at least allow admin sessions with a timeout.  I am one of the "adults" that turned UAC off after a few weeks, mainly because of the non-persistence of user decisions.

Paul.

[Mike Stefanik]

Use whatever you prefer. I'm not advocating that anyone use Vista, I simply pointed out some issues related to that version of Windows. People seem to think that because I mentioned problems and issues related to development on Vista that I'm saying that they should use Vista. The only thing that I've said in the past is that developers should at least test on the platform because because (like it or not) it's the default operating system that's being installed on new computers, and I think most developers want their users to have a good experience with their software.

Like it, don't like it, use it, don't use it. That's something that's entirely up to you. I've never said someone was wrong for sticking with XP, or that there aren't legitimate complaints about Vista. I do think that some of the complaints are overblown, but that's my personal opinion. That's all. The bottom line is always whatever you enjoy using and makes you the most productive.

[Mike Stefanik]

For instance when I am using Ubuntu I only have to enter my administrative password once, and I can perform multiple tasks requiring root privileges until I am idle for a specific period of time.  If Vista had that feature you wouldn't here so many complaints.

I completely agree with you there, and I would't be surprised if Microsoft makes this change. There was an interview with one of the project managers who (being serious) admitted that they made UAC as annoying as possible to "force" developers to redesign their software so that it would work in a least-privilege environment. For UNIX, it wasn't an issue because the operating system always used that security model. If you wrote software for UNIX, you knew the restrictions. But most Windows developers really just did things their own way as they had under the single-user platforms (Windows 3.x, Windows 95, etc.)

A simple example. Microsoft's guidelines for developing on Windows XP has said that user documents, settings and configuration files should not be stored under C:\Program Files. But because of inertia, convenience or compatibility, most developers continued to do that (including myself) and we got away with it because the security model for XP didn't enforce those guidelines. By default, regular accounts were created with administrative privleges, and no thought was given to writing software so that it would work correctly in a least-privilege environment (like it has for UNIX all these years). With Vista, they made the decision that enforcing the security model (which has largely existed since NT was created) would trump backwards compatibility. And they would use UAC as the "hammer" to force developers into compliance, rather than leaving it up to them to optionally comply. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that I agree with the approach (I do think it was heavy-handed), just explaining the rationale behind it.

On the other hand, it has seemed to work. Most developers these days do think about how their software will run in a least-privilege environment, while before Vista they were largely oblivious to it. They know that they can't just throw files under C:\Windows and C:\Program Files and should use the API to determine the correct folder to store documents and configuration files. It can be debated whether the ends justified the means, but overall what Microsoft was pushing for does seem to have happened. It's also cost them, no question. Vista would probably have been adopted at a much higher rate without UAC alone.

There's two things I'd like to see with Windows 7 as it relates to UAC. First, allow applications to request elevated privileges while they're running (not just at startup) and then prompt the user once during the session. It would fine-grain things so that a program that only needs elevated privileges for specific things can request it, perform that action and then revert back to normal privileges when its done and the user won't be spammed with warning dialogs. This would apply to Windows Explorer and the desktop shell as well, so you wouldn't see repeated dialogs when you try to move files around, etc. If they want to show some kind of an icon in the system tray as a visual indicator that privileges are currently elevated, that'd be fine. Second, require that applications actually provide information as to why they require elevated privileges. Right now, UAC doesn't provide any good information as to the reason that the warning dialog is being displayed.

Okay, I'm done. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.