This is an example of the kind of thinking I'm describing when
I say things like the whole uac thing is meant to generate warm fuzzies
in the marketing department and to cover microsoft's ass. Check out

[url]http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1020271&SiteID=1&mode=1[/url]

for an explanation of some of the problems with cygwin on vista,
and then be sure to open

[url]http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/6/a/56a0ed11-e073-42f9-932b-38acd478f46d/WindowsVistaUACDevReqs.doc[/url]

and read the section on installer detection on page 13. This
is a security system????

you assume anyone listens to what you say?

heh

how optimistic of you


Rich

"Rich" <r.green@comcast.net> wrote in news:#ufYGLRRIHA.5160
@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
[color=blue]
> you assume anyone listens to what you say?
>
> heh
>
> how optimistic of you
>
>
> Rich[/color]

I read the linked thread.

In article <Xns9A0EEE2EEC80thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142>,
DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>I read the linked thread.[/color]

Do you have an opinion on the idea of requiring privilege
elevation via UAC for executables with certain strings in their
filenames?

Hmmm, I wonder what happens if I write

c:\setup\install\installer\setup.exe -q install

1/2 :-)

[email]wrat@panix.com[/email] (the wharf rat) wrote in news:fkljt5$o7e$1
@reader1.panix.com:
[color=blue]
> In article <Xns9A0EEE2EEC80thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142>,
> DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>I read the linked thread.[/color]
>
> Do you have an opinion on the idea of requiring privilege
> elevation via UAC for executables with certain strings in their
> filenames?[/color]

Sure.....

1) It could be a potential security risk.

2) It doesn't work right anyway. I don't know how many times here I've seen
people having problems installing something, because they didn't choose
'Run as Administrator' when starting the install package.

"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fkkhs4$2bl$1@reader1.panix.com...[color=blue]
>
> This is an example of the kind of thinking I'm describing when
> I say things like the whole uac thing is meant to generate warm fuzzies
> in the marketing department and to cover microsoft's ass. Check out
>
> [url]http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1020271&SiteID=1&mode=1[/url]
>
> for an explanation of some of the problems with cygwin on vista,
> and then be sure to open
>
> [url]http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/6/a/56a0ed11-e073-42f9-932b-38acd478f46d/WindowsVistaUACDevReqs.doc[/url]
>
> and read the section on installer detection on page 13. This
> is a security system????
>[/color]

I decided to read one of your post again. I am disappointed here with your
inability to change gears out of *1st* gear and move on.

Is this all your posts are about, either DRM or UAC?

> I read the linked thread.



and?



Rich