• DrGunjah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Fair enough but then you shouldn’t complain about the lack of confirmation (like the meme does)

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s still a valid complain, but the problem is not exactly the presence or absence of a confirmation IMO, it’s a deeper matter.

      What causes user desensitization (I guess that’s a word) is a direct result of how Windows users traditionally install software - from untrusted sources or by downloading them directly from a vendor’s website then manually installing it.

      UAC would be just fine if it was a rare thing to see, but because of this “download a .exe > double click > install” flow users see it all the time, which defeats the purpose of the warning. It became just another half-measure Windows has implemented.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        And it’s unhelpful because it doesn’t give any details about what it wants to do with that admin access and also treats permission for one action as permission for all actions (not that you can tell what they first action you’re permitting is).

        I like the way android does it, where you can grant or revoke special permissions by category of action.

        Though the system I’d like to see is one where each program is sandboxed and then even you close the program (or it prompts for an elevation), then you get a list of system differences between the sandbox and your system and can choose whether and which changes to push from the sandbox env into the main env. Or to combine sandboxes so that programs can interact with each other.