Documenst and settings

[Novikov Semyon <tappak>]

Hi peoples.

What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents 
and Settings"?
IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".

--
wbr .tappak

[Robert Köpferl]

I agree.

And all, keep in mind that this name is a localized one. Thus it varies 
across localized win-versions. Since I don't like that very much, I 
would also suggest some shorter and more less generic name as users or 
home. Maybe "U" as a word game...

Novikov Semyon <tappak> schrieb:
> Hi peoples.
>
> What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents 
> and Settings"?
> IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".
>
> -- 
> wbr .tappak
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[João Jerónimo Barata de Oliveira]

Robert Köpferl wrote:
> And all, keep in mind that this name is a localized one. Thus it varies 
> across localized win-versions.

In the Portuguese version this directory name is the original 'Documents 
and Settings' like in the English version.

João Jerónimo

[[handytone24.de] Markus Nicoleit]

perhaps they @ M$ don't know how 'Documents and Settings' are called in
portuegese, or they are too lazy;)

Gruß
Markus / Marc Shock
__________________
eLogo Webdesign - Homepage Solutionz
[ www.elogo-webdesign.de http://www.elogo-webdesign.de  ]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]Im Auftrag von João Jerónimo
Barata de Oliveira
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2004 23:42
An: [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [ros-general] Documenst and settings

Robert Köpferl wrote:
> And all, keep in mind that this name is a localized one. Thus it varies
> across localized win-versions.

In the Portuguese version this directory name is the original 'Documents
and Settings' like in the English version.

João Jerónimo
_______________________________________________
ros-general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[João Jerónimo Barata de Oliveira]

[handytone24.de] Markus Nicoleit wrote:
> perhaps they @ M$ don't know how 'Documents and Settings' are called in
> portuegese, or they are too lazy;)

I don't know who translates windows to portuguese... but I think that 
are portugueses...

[ilmcuts]

Novikov Semyon <tappak> wrote:
> Hi peoples.
>
> What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents 
> and Settings"?
> IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".

IIRC you can rename this (and lots of other system folders). It's just 
some registry entry. Check out TweakUI. "Documents and Settings" is just 
the default string that M$ probably chose to confuse the least number of 
people. *shrug*

[Jonas Oberschweiber]

I think Documents and Settings makes sense, but it could be in users\Documents 
and Settings. That would make more sense.

Greetings

Jonas

Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 06:07 schrieb Novikov Semyon <tappak>:
> Hi peoples.
>
> What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents
> and Settings"?
> IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".
>
> --
> wbr .tappak
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[[handytone24.de] Markus Nicoleit]

or:

users\documents

and

users\settings

i like that more

Gruß
Markus / Marc Shock
__________________
eLogo Webdesign - Homepage Solutionz
[ www.elogo-webdesign.de http://www.elogo-webdesign.de  ]
Markus Nicoleit
Kelterstr. 21/1
75334 Straubenhardt

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]Im Auftrag von Jonas
Oberschweiber
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 14:14
An: [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [ros-general] Documenst and settings

I think Documents and Settings makes sense, but it could be in
users\Documents
and Settings. That would make more sense.

Greetings

Jonas

Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 06:07 schrieb Novikov Semyon <tappak>:
> Hi peoples.
>
> What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents
> and Settings"?
> IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".
>
> --
> wbr .tappak
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

_______________________________________________
ros-general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Lorenzo]

> users\documents
> and
> users\settings

What? I think you mean "Users[username]\Documents" and
"Users[username]\Settings". But if you look in each user folder in the
"Documents and Settings", you will find a very rich and complete hierarchy.

[[handytone24.de] Markus Nicoleit]

Gruß
Markus / Marc Shock
__________________
eLogo Webdesign - Homepage Solutionz
[ www.elogo-webdesign.de http://www.elogo-webdesign.de  ]
Markus Nicoleit
Kelterstr. 21/1
75334 Straubenhardt

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]Im Auftrag von Lorenzo
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 14:53
An: [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [ros-general] Documenst and settings
> users\documents
> and
> users\settings

What? I think you mean "Users[username]\Documents" and
"Users[username]\Settings".
> > > Yes

But if you look in each user folder in the
"Documents and Settings", you will find a very rich and complete hierarchy.
> > > I know but Documents and Settings sounds so long;)

_______________________________________________
ros-general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Lorenzo]

> What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents
> and Settings"?

The name and position of this directory is stored in the registry, so it's
real name isn't important. You could like it or not, but I'm pretty sure
that Microsoft selected it after its usability tests, so it should be the
most understandable for the medium user.
> IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".

Mmmh, why not "Users" or "Home" with the first letter uppercase?

IMHO, the best name should be "Profiles" or "User profiles", but it's only
my opinion. "Home" it's too "unix" for me so I find it horrible (Unix =
Evil). But for many users it would be the most logical. So why don't leave
"Documents and Settings" as default and allowing the experienced user to
change it in the setup?

[Novikov Semyon <tappak>]

Lorenzo wrote:
> Mmmh, why not "Users" or "Home" with the first letter uppercase?

Because in the terminal it is difficult for typing :) (Shift + "u")
> IMHO, the best name should be "Profiles" or "User profiles", but it's only
> my opinion. "Home" it's too "unix" for me so I find it horrible (Unix =
> Evil). But for many users it would be the most logical. So why don't leave
> "Documents and Settings" as default and allowing the experienced user to
> change it in the setup?

I came in project from Unix and i thing we shouldn't reject all unix
solutions.
But i thing it is good idea allowing user change this stuff in setup
process.

NT architecture is multiuser. Unix is parent of multiuser concept.
And i thing each user should have own "home" defended from other users.
May be my opinion is too "unix". It is not important how to name home 
directory but multiuser concept is really important IMHO.
--
wbr
.tappak

[Jasper van de Gronde]

Novikov Semyon <tappak> wrote:
> Lorenzo wrote:
> I came in project from Unix and i thing we shouldn't reject all unix
> solutions.
> But i thing it is good idea allowing user change this stuff in setup
> process.
>
> NT architecture is multiuser. Unix is parent of multiuser concept.
> And i thing each user should have own "home" defended from other users.
> May be my opinion is too "unix". It is not important how to name home 
> directory but multiuser concept is really important IMHO.

Perhaps I don't understand you, but NT (at least 2000 and XP) user 
exactly that. Suppose you have the users Alice and Bob under Windows you 
would have the following directory structure under Documents and Settings:
Documents and Settings
   Alice
     Application Data
     My Documents
     Temp, etc.
   All Users
     Application Data
     My Documents
     Temp, etc.
   Bob
     Application Data
     My Documents
     Temp, etc.

There are also some other directories (like Default User and 
LocalService), but I don't know what their function is.

Under a Unix-like system this would be something like (supposing Bob is 
the administrator):
etc (more or less instead of the All Users directory)
home
   Alice
root (instead of Bob, as Bob was the administrator)

So they are very similar, with my personal preference going to the 
Windows method as I find it a bit more structured and consistent.

[Jan Tisje]

> Perhaps I don't understand you, but NT (at least 2000 and XP) user 
> exactly that.

Well, they try. but the functionality still is far behind unix. 
I hope reactos will get nearer. To achieve this, we have to throw some
Windows stuff away.

Jan

[Aleksey Bragin]

Pleease, trust me, the most of the issues I saw with NT 4.0 administration
were due to a lazy administrator who didn't know all possible options/etc,
and not because NT 4.0 couldn't do this.

NT 4.0 security subsystem is a really complex and powerful thing, it really
worth calling it a substantial effort in the security rather than 'attempt
to implement a security like unix'.

If ROS will support (and I bet it will!) NT 4.0 security model (or, better,
Win2k then) it would be just great!
Certainly people with deeper knowledge of this security model + knowledge of
unix and also linux implementation model can specify the differences, and
what's missing in them.

With the best regards,
Aleksey Bragin.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Tisje" [e-mail]
To: "ReactOS General List" [e-mail]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ros-general] Documenst and settings
> > Perhaps I don't understand you, but NT (at least 2000 and XP) user
> > exactly that.
>
> Well, they try. but the functionality still is far behind unix.
> I hope reactos will get nearer. To achieve this, we have to throw some
> Windows stuff away.
>
> Jan

[Steven Edwards]

Hello Alex,

I am going to drag this semi-off topic for a bit while I plant some
ideas in people heads.

--- Aleksey Bragin [e-mail] wrote:
> If ROS will support (and I bet it will!) NT 4.0 security model (or,
> better,
> Win2k then) it would be just great!
> Certainly people with deeper knowledge of this security model +
> knowledge of
> unix and also linux implementation model can specify the differences,
> and
> what's missing in them.

Note I only know a little about the Local Securty Authority but I think
its not going to be to hard to implement if Wine and ReactOS work
together on it. /me just doubts how much he can write.

The unix security design of users and groups with permissions is not
bad its just outdated. The nice thing about Unix is adding new security
modules via PAM is not to bad except they are only for authentication.
The unix concept of groups, users and permissions needs to be moved
forward about 20 years. The SELinux stuff has really helped alot in
this regard. (Please dont flame its the truth)

I recently addressed this in a discussion about ReactOS. Currently our
lsass does not exist. I think we have what we have parts of the
security reference monitor already implemented in ntoskrnl and most of
the parts are there for winlogon and the SAM database so we need to
develop the lsass services and build out the authentaticaion modules
for MSV1_0 auth.

One of the nice things about the design of the Windows security module
is that we can make plugins at both ends so that users can be granted
access either based on a "domain" concept in winlogin/Gina using
plugins for LDAP and PAM or via the lsass so users can be authencated
locally.

It would be nice if we could work with the Winehq people on this as I
think we can share the parts of the security subsystem that reside in
lsass. Think of it like this

(Kernel support)

wineserver/ntosknrl need to both implement the security refernce
montior for privlaged use of the local system resources. I dont know
how much of this wineserver really needs to take in to account in the
initial incarnation.

(Local security subsystem)

Lsass works interactivly with services and the login system and can
accept all sorts of nice plugins so we are not limited to just the
standard Windows authentication. As a matter of fact you could replace
large parts of they authentication system if you are supper paronoid.
Think of lsass as the sentry for Windows. It talks to the SRM to make
sure you are not doing anything you shouldnt be.

(User interaction)
Interaction with the user will come from Winlogon on ReactOS or on Unix
the user should already be authenticated via Linux security. This can
of course be done via the authentication modules described above. Once
the user

I wish I could attach the nice chart from Inside Windows NT so you
could see the security subsystem. Its quite a piece of work and is
quite a shame Windows security gets a bad name due to slack
administrators.

Thanks
Steven

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

[Mark IJbema]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:10:33AM -0700, Steven Edwards wrote:
> I wish I could attach the nice chart from Inside Windows NT so you
> could see the security subsystem. Its quite a piece of work and is
> quite a shame Windows security gets a bad name due to slack
> administrators.

That's exactly the problem, you need to be some kind of wizzard to do
windows system administration, while in Linux (or at least debian, i
don't have much experience with other distro's) the default is secure,
and you need to spend effort to make it insecure. I'll gladly believe
that the windows security system is very good, but again it seems like
another MS thingy: good idea, badly implemented :(

Mark

[Aleksey Bragin]

> From: "Mark IJbema" [e-mail]
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 2:51 PM
> That's exactly the problem, you need to be some kind of wizzard to do
> windows system administration, while in Linux (or at least debian, i
> don't have much experience with other distro's) the default is secure,
> and you need to spend effort to make it insecure. I'll gladly believe
> that the windows security system is very good, but again it seems like
> another MS thingy: good idea, badly implemented :(

I have to agree here -- even Microsoft agrees with this statement - Windows
comes (or came) setted up in the insecure way. At the Windows Server 2003
presentation, where I have been to, they told that now this problem is
solved, and by default Win2003 is setted up with minimum permissions, and
sys admin should really give permissions, rather than restrict them, while
configuring a server.

And here ROS should certainly support this kind of idea.

But nevertheless bad default configuration isn't the cause to redesign the
whole security system.

With the best regards,
Aleksey Bragin.

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 09.34 16/04/2004, you wrote:
> > Mmmh, why not "Users" or "Home" with the first letter uppercase?
>
> Because in the terminal it is difficult for typing :) (Shift + "u")

Windows is case-insensitive

[Jan Tisje]

"KJK::Hyperion" [e-mail] schrieb am Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:28:30 +0200
> At 09.34 16/04/2004, you wrote:
> > > Mmmh, why not "Users" or "Home" with the first letter uppercase?
> >
> > Because in the terminal it is difficult for typing :) (Shift + "u")
>
> Windows is case-insensitive

even on unix you may force bash to do tab completion case insensitive,
so you may type "use\t" which will turn to "User". 
Does make sense on windows, but is not default setting of cygwin bash.
:-(

Jan

[João Jerónimo Barata de Oliveira]

Lorenzo wrote:
> IMHO, the best name should be "Profiles" or "User profiles", but it's only
> my opinion. "Home" it's too "unix" for me so I find it horrible (Unix =
> Evil). But for many users it would be the most logical. So why don't leave
> "Documents and Settings" as default and allowing the experienced user to
> change it in the setup?

I sugest that the word would be something more "langual democratic", in 
order to be in a non-specific language, and not to be translated...

I sugest some Esperanto or Interlingua word, like "profiloj"! What do 
you think?

[Andrew Greenwood]

> What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents
> and Settings"?
> IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".

Those seem even more absurd suggestions, for a Windows clone at least. Home
might make the user get confused with their browser's home page or
something.

Documents and Settings - now what do you think that contains? hmm? Documents
and settings, perhaps? It's much better than C:\My Documents, at least.

I personally just use a separate partition labelled DATA.

[João Jerónimo Barata de Oliveira]

Andrew Greenwood wrote:
> > What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents
> > and Settings"?
> > IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".
>
> Those seem even more absurd suggestions, for a Windows clone at least. Home
> might make the user get confused with their browser's home page or
> something.

Users that may get confused with this sort of thing are not used to read 
  the system directories names...

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 06.07 15/04/2004, you wrote:
> What you thing about strange microsoft terminology? Such as "Documents and 
> Settings"? IMHO this directory more logically to name "users" or "home".

or "profiles", like in Windows NT, as it's what they're called in Windows 
(home directories are another thing). Mine is called D:\home, though