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
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 ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
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: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com]Im Auftrag von João Jerónimo Barata de Oliveira Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2004 23:42 An: ros-general@reactos.com 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 ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
[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...
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*
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 ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
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: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com]Im Auftrag von Jonas Oberschweiber Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 14:14 An: ros-general@reactos.com 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 ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
_______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
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: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com]Im Auftrag von Lorenzo Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 14:53 An: ros-general@reactos.com 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 ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
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?
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
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.
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" jan.tisje@gmx.de To: "ReactOS General List" ros-general@reactos.com 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
Hello Alex,
I am going to drag this semi-off topic for a bit while I plant some ideas in people heads.
--- Aleksey Bragin aleksey@studiocerebral.com 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
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
From: "Mark IJbema" mark@ijbema.xs4all.nl 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" noog@libero.it 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
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?
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.
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...
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