497
Andrew just wants to open his files on Windows 10
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
497 points (97.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
32024 readers
508 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Andrew is not very smart. Windows isn't very good, but he is very clueless. There are legitimate things to complain about, but Andrew just complains.
Andrew doesn't know how file system permissions work. He complains that computers demand he keeps up, but these ACLs have been a thing since Windows XP (for consumers, much longer for older NT versions) so clearly the 14 years he had to catch up weren't enough.
I'm not sure why he brought up moving to 64 bit (guess he came from XP, perhaps?), I don't think thats relevant to anything here.
He doesn't seem to know what an administrator account is (so his normal account probably is an administrator account) and rants something about "owners" as if that means anything to a computer.
He also concludes that this needs to be done for every file (it doesn't) and then gets mad about that.
Fixing ACLs sucks, it takes forever and the UI isn't very good for novices, but this guy's anger seems to be misdirected towards his own misunderstandings about how Windows works and has worked for over a decade at the point he came to the forums.
None of this is because of "changes", if anything his problem is exacerbated by the fact Windows still has the Win2000 permissions dialog on ACLs to this day.
Windows permissions can be tricky... I'll give them that. A lot of the tools Microsoft provides are not very straightforward.
However, PowerShell and tools from Sysinternals suite, or open source tools as well, make it a lot easier.
Managing permissions on Linux, especially if doing the ACL thing, can be complicated too. I've really never ran into many permission issues myself. psexec has been helpful too when needing to access things as the SYSTEM user and not get those stupid prompts asking me to change permissions for protected folders.
Having used secured SELinux enterprise code, I've learned that Linux permissions can be even more complicated than Windows' when multiple permission models suddenly overlap. There's an endless supply of special bit flags, security contexts, and sandboxing features that all overlap.
I've run into very complicated Linux permission issues when combining SELinux (properly configured, not just neutered and standby) and system services in some specific configuration. Once you start applying the permission systems that Windows comes with by default in Linux, you get the same problems (or worse ones, as Linux has a multitude of permission systems stacked on top of each other).
On Windows, I recall one particularly messed up drive from another computer that not even NT_AURHORITY\SYSTEM was allowed to alter the ownership of. Luckily Linux happily stripped out all the permissions for me because Linux can plainly ignores ACL if you're root and provide the right flags. Probably a terrible way to break ACLs in a managed environment, but this time it was a feature!
Omg, it's an inside-joke at our company now.
Anytime something happens on a server that's been running great for years, like a hard drive going bad or the time one literally caught on fire...
98% of the time it is selinux that is the reason it is doing weird things after the main fix because selinux changed a setting on the reboot.
"Have you checked selinux?" is the go to question whenever anything breaks now, even if it's not a computer.
We tend to forget about it these days, but the Unix permissions model was criticized for decades for being overly simplistic. One user having absolute authority, with limited ways to delegate specific authority to other users, is not a good model for multi-user operating systems. At least not in environments with more than a few users.
A well-configured sudo or SELinux can overcome this, which is one reason we don't bring it up much anymore. We also changed the whole model, where most people have individual PCs, and developers are often in their own little VM environment on a larger server.
I agree with the critics, the Unix permission model is too basic. I've run into this myself doing the very difficult operation of "reusing an ext4 USB drive on another computer" because all the files were suddenly owned by a user that didn't even exist on my laptop.
NTFS fixed this issue by having the OS generate user IDs across systems rather than reusing the same IDs and making the administrators match everything up. I don't think selinux can fix that, though.
I welcome the extensions bringing Linux' permission model to the 21st century, but the way they've all been implemented independently does cause some weird edge cases that clearly nobody has tested.
I think Andrew might be a lawyer.
My roommate for a couple years in college was pre-law, and did some internships after graduation but before gaining his own law degree. He mentioned at one point how absolutely and hilariously pervasive it was at the firm he was working for attorneys to just run screaming to IT every single time literally anything was even the slightest bit inconvenient or obtuse (to their understanding). Part of it was the logic of “I bill clients at $800/hr, I am not spending my time to resolve whatever this hiccup is”, but part of it was absolutely also some bullshit power dynamics.
Worked in IT for over a decade, lawyers are the fucking. worst.
I see your lawyers and I raise you doctors...
I was working with a doc on an IT problem a few months ago.. It was a mildy terrifying experience, I would never want someone so ignorant as my doctor.
I don't know, I don't think I want the best IT person in the world performing an appendectomy.
Just because you're an expert in one field doesn't mean you're an expert in every field.
"Okay so let's start with the simplest thing by performing a power cycle and seeing if that fixes it...CLEAR!"
I was married to a lawyer for years. They have to bill somewhere from 1700-2200 hours a year to stay on partner track. And they can't bill every hour that they're working (although they can double up sometimes by using the minimum 2/10ths of an hour). My sympathy is with the lawyer. It's not a power dynamic, it's how the firm makes money and what you're there to do.
Yeah, because being a raging asshole to your coworkers is justified as long as it helps you "stay on partner track."
Abusive people always find justifications for it.
"Look guys, their industry makes their boss abusive to them which makes them abusive to their staff, so it's just how it is because money..."
This is like "Well my drunk granddad had anger issues after the war so he beat my dad who beat me something fierce and I turned out fine " of the professional world.
Some people think enough money or status is worth disrespecting other human beings who are just trying to do their already shitty enough job, and that's concerning.
I.T has to hit their "ticket targets" to stay on the "lights come on when they flip the switch at home" track, it's how they make their money and what they're paid to do.
Playing coddling psychologist for grown adults who could pass a bar exam but can't handle basic respect doesn't make things any easier lol.
To any of those types reading this:
Stressed or not, it's amazing how fast things move when you work with IT as teammates instead of underlings, using your level brain instead of your emotionally unstable mouth.
Because their continued employment depends on them hitting their targets so they need support staff to do their jobs.
Yup, there's the justification right on time. They had to abandon basic civility and professionalism to "hit their targets."
Thats why they can be abusive, ignore the company process for tickets, threaten their coworkers, whatever they want. They need to "stay on parnet track" and "hit their targets." No one else has any stressors or requirements at their workplace, just the lawyers.
Nevermind that the "support staff" make sure lots of people, processes and services work, and may individually be more important to "hitting targets" for the company as a whole than any individual lawyer.
How about the lawyers "do their job" by interacting with their coworkers professionally? By submitting tickets correctly and in a timely manner?
Abusing your coworkers is never justified.
edit: nix this.
they never justified anything.
they explained.
explained why they were raging assholes or whatever.
but didn't justify.
Nah, that was justification. If only "the service workers" would "do their jobs," then it wouldn't have to happen.
"If you just didn't make me mad, I wouldn't have to X" is abuser 101.
gah, I'm an idiot. Yes, you're quite right. Somehow I read the longer rants, but missed the last shorter post which was peak BS.
But being rude and abusive to support staff doesn’t help, encourage, or even compel the support staff do their jobs any better or faster. In fact, I’d wager it’s rather the opposite.
I work in IT (not IT support, though) and I’m fortunate enough that none of my business partners are outright abusive. Even so, I still have some that I deprioritize compared to others because working with them is a pain (things like asking for project proposals to solve X problem and never having money to fund them). If someone was actively rude to me when I had fucked up, much less when I was doing a great job, I can guarantee I wouldn’t work any better or faster when it was for them.
Yeah like, complain about the one thing MS is finally improving in recent years, clamping down on non-admin users and non-admin permissions.