onlyonemac wrote:Then where were my ACLs in Windows XP Home Edition?
I can't help you with you inability to configure simple security settings in Windows.
Just tell me where the settings are, because they are clearly not in the same place as Windows 7. If you don't believe me, I've still got that system floating around somewhere and I can send you a screenshot.
Oh, and by the way, Windows 10 won't let me add a second user account without trying to link it to a Microsoft account. EDIT: It does, but it crashed the first three times that I tried it so I gave up.
Last edited by onlyonemac on Mon May 02, 2016 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
When you start writing an OS you do the minimum possible to get the x86 processor in a usable state, then you try to get as far away from it as possible.
onlyonemac wrote:Oh guess what, I just discovered that there's no way to open a second shell session inside an existing "command prompt" window in Windows! Or if there is, it doesn't come up when I google "windows open new prompt in existing window". Why on earth does every instance of the command shell process have to be tied to its own window? WHAT HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CONCERNS???
I'd say that the experience in this thread should teach you that if you don't know how to do something in Windows it doesn't mean that it can't be easily done. It just means that you don't know how to do it.
onlyonemac wrote:Oh guess what, I just discovered that there's no way to open a second shell session inside an existing "command prompt" window in Windows! Or if there is, it doesn't come up when I google "windows open new prompt in existing window". Why on earth does every instance of the command shell process have to be tied to its own window? WHAT HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CONCERNS???
I already read that. The question title is "create a new cmd.exe window from within another cmd.exe prompt", when I asked to open a second shell session inside an existing "command prompt" window. Can't you understand the difference?
When you start writing an OS you do the minimum possible to get the x86 processor in a usable state, then you try to get as far away from it as possible.
onlyonemac wrote:Then where were my ACLs in Windows XP Home Edition?
I can't help you with you inability to configure simple security settings in Windows.
Just tell me where the settings are, because they are clearly not in the same place as Windows 7. If you don't believe me, I've still got that system floating around somewhere and I can send you a screenshot.
iansjack wrote:I can't help you with you inability to configure simple security settings in Windows.
Just tell me where the settings are, because they are clearly not in the same place as Windows 7. If you don't believe me, I've still got that system floating around somewhere and I can send you a screenshot.
As stated at the top of the article, the settings are only in XP Professional. So why didn't you just tell me that, instead of lying to me:
iansjack wrote:
Are you going to tell me that, in addition to having to pay for a basic piece of software needed to use my computer, I now also have to pay extra just to get a basic security feature that I have and use every day on my Linux systems?
No, of course I'm not going to tell you a mistruth.
When you start writing an OS you do the minimum possible to get the x86 processor in a usable state, then you try to get as far away from it as possible.
onlyonemac wrote:Oh guess what, I just discovered that there's no way to open a second shell session inside an existing "command prompt" window in Windows! Or if there is, it doesn't come up when I google "windows open new prompt in existing window". Why on earth does every instance of the command shell process have to be tied to its own window? WHAT HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CONCERNS???
I already read that. The question title is "create a new cmd.exe window from within another cmd.exe prompt", when I asked to open a second shell session inside an existing "command prompt" window. Can't you understand the difference?
onlyonemac wrote:Then where were my ACLs in Windows XP Home Edition? Are you going to tell me that, in addition to having to pay for a basic piece of software needed to use my computer, I now also have to pay extra just to get a basic security feature that I have and use every day on my Linux systems?
This is probably a valid point. I read here that features from Windows NT Server edition were installed in Workstation edition too, but they were not accessible due two single registry entries that controlled this behaviour. Many years after, Vista Starter edition allowed only 3 (if I recall correctly) windows to be opened at once, which is an arbitrary restriction. Microsoft just wanted users to pay for the more feature-complete versions.
iansjack wrote:No, that isn't stated:
There's a tweak listed on the site for getting XP Pro security settings on XP Home.
The fact that it requires a program cryptically named as shrpubw to run is not really acceptable for end users. (POSIX's some function names like mbrtowc() are cryptic too, but these are not meant to be used by end-users that got their first computer just a week ago.)
glauxosdever wrote:The fact that it requires a program cryptically named as shrpubw to run is not really acceptable for end users. (POSIX's some function names like mbrtowc() are cryptic too, but these are not meant to be used by end-users that got their first computer just a week ago.)
The average user, who got their first computer a week ago (let's hope it's not running XP!), at which XP Home Edition was aimed really didn't want to be messing about with complicated ACLs. But it is part of the operating system and can be done if you really want to.
If you want to do particular things in Windows you really should buy the appropriate version of the operating system, so I can't accept that as a valid criticism. And, let's face it, we are talking here about a 15-year old operating system. It really is not fair to criticize Windows today on the basis of perceived failings in a 15-year old version.
glauxosdever wrote:Many years after, Vista Starter edition allowed only 3 (if I recall correctly) windows to be opened at once, which is an arbitrary restriction. Microsoft just wanted users to pay for the more feature-complete versions.
So you would have preferred Microsoft to sell only the one expensive, fully featured version of Vista even if many users didn't need the more advanced facilities? Don't be too harsh on Microsoft for the fact that they want users to pay for their software; that's the business they are in.
onlyonemac wrote:How about the Windows XP system that spontaneously started performing filesystem checks and then giving a BSOD almost every time it was booted, after I did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to cause this (including but not limited to installing/upgrading software/drivers, reconfiguring any hardware/software, leaving the system for long periods of time without booting it, installing updates, or going online and downloading malware)?
I'm not going to argue with you, but I will post this anyway.
iansjack wrote:So you would have preferred Microsoft to sell only the one expensive, fully featured version of Vista even if many users didn't need the more advanced facilities? Don't be too harsh on Microsoft for the fact that they want users to pay for their software; that's the business they are in.
My main problem is that you can't do with Windows what you want. The source code is not available, so no one can change the behaviour of Windows, except if someone is a very skilled hacker that knows how to edit hex codes. Windows imposes arbitrary restrictions on users, has backdoors, and every security vulnerability is reported to secret agencies, according to the Free Software Foundation (I repeat that I don't like their badly-written software, I just agree with them that everything of this above is bad).
Now you're beginning to sound like the crazies. Tin-foil hats are available for free.
If you don't like Windows, don't use it. But that doesn't prove that the operating system is inferior, just that you don't like it. You can rely upon the FSF for all your beliefs if you wish, but I can't gain that level of paranoia.
I've no problem with people not liking Windows or Microsoft. But my sense of fair play doesn't like to see untruthful fabrications to back up this prejudice.
(BTW - how have you changed the behaviour of Linux by having access to the source code? I've only done this once in more than twenty years of using Linux.)
Paying attention to anything the Free Software Foundation says about Microsoft and treating it with anything less than a mountain of salt is like treating the diatribes of a far-right xenophobe about foreign traditions as gospel.
onlyonemac wrote:I already read that. The question title is "create a new cmd.exe window from within another cmd.exe prompt", when I asked to open a second shell session inside an existing "command prompt" window. Can't you understand the difference?
This is insane. You can instantiate a new shell the same way you can on Linux -- type the name of the shell's excecutable. You have a new shell and a new environment running in a new process.
If you're complaining that the Win32 console doesn't have tabs, then you're complaining that the bone-stock first-party terminal on Windows has the same limitations as the bone-stock first-party terminal on X11 (xterm) and doesn't have the same features as your friendly third-party terminal on X11 (gnome-terminal or whatever you use), and that is somehow Microsoft's fault.
