Quicken Backup (Part 2)

You can use Thunderbird without messing up your WM settings. Just don't tell it to be your default e-mail or newsreader program. Plus, don't have it import your mail until you feel ready to make the switch permenant. I have used TB but I don't like the way it handles HTML mail so I switched back to OE. TB also does not have a combine and decode function so if you frequently need to combine multipart messages then you are out of luck using TB.

Just make sure that youre newsreader is set to plain text to avoid the HTML issue we are currently experiancing.

I'd like very much to download and give it a try. But you know me, I don't want to mess up anything that I already have that is working fine (but a little too slow).

Can I try it without messing up my Windows Mail and if I don't like it, can I simply start using Windows Mail again? (Of course, I'm assuming I can use it without Mozilla).

:Don

As a full fledged, as they say, devout atheist - I find the above pretty funny!

You'd have more of a chance of having me by you a stead dinner!!

And no, that's not happening either...

That's the worse form of infiltration! And you allowed it to happen! Shame on you! ;-)

And yet you continue to use it. Interesting...

If it but a few binaries that you do really deal with then it follows that it's not a big deal.

Install a client, I use Azureus, search for bittorrent sites (i.e. google, "bittorrent "), click on the link. How difficult it that?

The trick to not losing your mind is *using your mind*.

Thunderbird *is* from the Mozilla project. It's one of their products. You can download it from

Meantime feel free to email me personally and I will help you. Note: You'll have to register to email me but it's pretty easy.

Now where else do you get an offer like that!

Someth> Larry, thanks for the great feedback! I have made the last three

The proper way to "prevent" such things is to use the proper way to do such things. To do this one should follow the standards and then validate (as Regan said to Gorbachev "Trust but verify ").

HTML headers should be done with the "H" tags of which there are H1 - H6. IOW one should not be putting any kinds of font information such as Arial nor point size in there. Such presentation information is best left to the eventual reader, who may not have the font you've chosen nor want Wingbats in Pink at 24 point!

However if you must code in a layout that's what CSS is for.

In any event Word, which this was made with, is an absolutely horrible HTML editor! And I shall now show you some of the reasons why. I hope you'll enjoy this ride as much as I will...

First off MS Word created HTML pages contain a lot of bloat. What Word does is include styling information at the beginning of the document to cover MS Word "styles" then applies "styles" to the layout. This is done, AFAICT, to attempt to get the web page to look "just like it did in Word". In a sentence - It's bad web design and bloat to your web pages let alone often non-standard and should be avoided at all costs.

Here is the beginning bloat:

Now wasn't that fun? :-)

After creating all that crud we are now able to apply it to our content. Here's the part that does the heading:

DesignSync Documentation Has Moved

OK, not you tell me - where's the Arial 11 point in there?

I'm sure you've enjoyed the above exercise...

Oh, and how does this look in "straight" HTML?

DesignSync Documentation Has Moved

Aside from ancient people still deriving their p*rn from the usenet, who needs combine and decode things. The internet and broadband speeds have largely eliminated the need such things but old habits die hard I guess.

That's a matter of opinion and you know what they say about opinions...

Why?

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of proper etiquitte or, if you prefer, courtesy to others in the newsgroup. Newsgroup etiquitte is well established and has been for many years.

The biggest reason is that if you continue to ignore proper etiquitte in this newsgroup, people here will killfile you and that means you will not be able to get answers to your questions.

Not enough to warrant an entirely new name. I suspect they changed the name because they removed more features than they added (and perhaps for valid reasons).

I knew that and that's how I'm already set up.

I assume you also want me to uncheck "Reply to messages using the format in which they were sent".

Give me a convincing reason, other than your appreciation, and I will do so.

Jerry

No you stupid f*ck, it's a matter of opinion only, like all etiquette, it's merely somebody's opinion of what somebody else should do (IOW "conform to the way I do it because I want you to"). It's not law nor even a standard (find one! You won't) - it's a f****ng opinion - one that you may hold in high regard while others might not. IOW people have differing opinions on the matter - what one might consider proper etiquette in one area others might rightly consider rude. And as such, by definition, it makes it a matter of opinion! But your head's so far up your ass that you think it's not an opinion and you strive to convert all others to your way of thinking and that - in and of itself - is extremely rude! Conversely you never here me try to convert you to my way of thinking - I never tell you to post in HTML now do I? Any idiot would see then that it is *you*, not me, being the inconsiderate one!

I don't need answers to my questions, least of all from you. You probably don't know enough to answer any of my questions son so STFU! You, who comes rambling into here with the one true devotion of etiquette that you deem all must follow - poppycock! You hold no monopoly on this despite your protestations to the contrary. And don't bother me with your silly arguments - I've heard them all before and none stand up to reason nor rationality - it's all held up by emotional ploys that you simply want others to do it your way. Well this person will never do it your way - at least not for silly, non-rational arguments such as the ones I've heard over the decades (yes, you heard me right, DECADES) attempting to rationally justify this netiquette.

And anybody who wishes to killfile me by all means go right ahead. I could give a flying f*ck...

Meantime XS11E get a real name you cowardly f*ck.

At least you're consistently wrong.

You really have no room to call others stupid.

Obviously someone thought it needed a new name, who knows why? If you ever looked at the folder for Outlook Express the .exe file is still called msimn.exe from the old Microsoft Internet Mail and News which has been gone for many years, don't know why they didn't change that name?

Proper etiquette? Responding in kind to someone as ignorant and discourteous as Andrew DeFaria doesn't mean you should be equally discourteous.

I only shun html in newsgroups since it has no place here. You don't see the word "binaries" in the group title do you? I know, you don't care.

Don,

I've had a little fun reading through your responses with Quicken, Vista, and all the UAC permission stuff.

I'd thought I'd like to give you a perhaps different view on why you've had problems, why Vista is giving you problems, and perhaps a view on how to solve these problems in the future.

First: I don't happen to own and/or use a copy of Vista. Yep, I'm running XP. However, I'm an old (probably too old) computer user. Yes, I've used some relatively old computers... Like, say, the Altair home brew that was advertised in Popular Electronics all those moons ago.

The first real multi-tasking computer systems I ran with (beyond the single taskers like dedicated radar processors and the like) was Purdue's old PIRATE system and an old, $DIETY knows what version Unix system that ran on a pair of 11/78's in Purdue's EE department. I continue to use Unix at work and have used Linux in and out of work. So, you might say, I know the ins and outs of both Windows and Unixen systems.

More to the point, I happen to know somewhat about the security models in both systems.

Point #1: Dos 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.x, 4.x, 5.x, and 6.x, Windows 1.0,

Let's talk about Unix for a bit. Every directory and every file in Unix has three permission bits for three different sets: Read permission for User, Group, and Other Write permission for User, Group, and Other Execute permission for User, Group, and Other

This is often represented as a string: "rwxrwxrwx", where the first "rwx" is for the user, the second "rwx" is for the group, and the third "rwx" is for others.

There can be a ridiculously large number of users. The users are members of groups. Any user who is not a member of the group that "owns" a directory is an "other".

Besides users with names like "john_doe" in groups like "hardware_development", you also have users like "root", "mail" "cron" and so on.

Point: System programs like, say, "sendmail" run in directories that have group write permissions that are reserved for them and are definitely not writable by run-of-the-mill user name/group combinations. Further, Joe Random User can't write the directories in which sendmail (or similar) programs are installed. For that matter, regular user programs like, say, "vi" (a text editor) are installed in directories that users can read and execute from, but can't write.

This means, generally, that configuration information on a program (last file accessed, save files, etc.) aren't stored in the _program_ directories - they're stored in the individual user directories. There are exceptions to this kind of thing, but they usually involve non-program directories.

Now, Windows 1.x to ME runs on top of DOS. DOS was built as a cheap knock-off of CP/M that ran on Intel processors. And CP/M itself was an extremely cut-down version of the Unix of the day, written more or less from scratch, and built, pretty much, without security. Remember: CP/M ran on machines with, like, 4K (not Meg) of RAM. Hobbyist stuff. Single user. No internet. Modems barely exist. No permissions, anywhere. I don't know too much about CP/M but, after Microsoft got done with the first few iterations of DOS, any permissions were minuscule and easy to do away with. Want to overwrite COMMAND.COM? Go right ahead. Don't like IBMBIO.SYS? Replace it with your own. Erase programs like deltree.exe in the DOS directory on a hard drive? Be my guest. NO PROTECTIONS.

A virus-writer's paradise. Want to snarf a virus onto Excel.exe? Sure, why not? There's nothing to stop a virus, worm, or what have you.

Yeah, Unix systems got infected, too. Usually by elevating the rights of a program through something called "suid", which, if played right by Mr. Nefarious, could take a user-space program and make it root. (That's Administrator to you Windows NT and on types.) However, pretty much all of the easy pickings in that direction are long gone. There have been some proof of concept viruses and such for Linux and Unix systems - but, by and large, those systems are a HECK of a lot more secure than Windows XP and down.

Now, let's talk about the Windows security model. So, along comes Microsoft and a bunch of newly hired on hands from DEC. VMS junkies. VMS is a true-blue multitasking multiuser system that I, personally, have run across a couple of times. The guys who built that and who, in the end, designed Windows NT, knew about security. By this time Microsoft was being hammered by more and more viruses and the like and _knew_ that something had to change. NT was the answer.

NT has a serious security model. By and large it's the same security model that's used in Win 2000, XP, 2003, and now Vista. To tell the truth I've banged my head against how the security model works with Workgroups, Domains, read and write permissions, and all that jazz, and I'm still not overly clear about it. It's supposed to be more powerful and more fine-grained than the Unix/Linux model... And, from what I've heard, it's a heck of a lot harder to understand. Mere mortals don't have a chance.

But, let's just say for the moment that a Unix-style (or Windows NT-style, I'm not proud) security model can be put together on a Windows box. What should be done?

Well, first of all, nobody should really have write permissions in the Windows directory. For that matter, nobody should have write permissions in Program Files. Local data should be stored with the user.

But there was a problem. Remember, Windows 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x, and pretty much Windows 95, had no protections whatsoever. The people who wrote spreadsheets, word processors, drivers for disk drives, modem, graphics cards, and application programs of all stripes put their running data where ever they wanted it back in those days.

Remember: In a Unix/Linux system, the only entity allowed to write to the "/" (root) directory is root, the system administrator. The _only_ thing you find in there are more directories - no application files. And you sure don't see things like "/Quicken".

Now, with Windows NT (or was it 2000?) Microsoft put in the directory structure $ROOT\Documents and Settings\user_name\A whole bunch of directories holding user-specific data. Ah - that sounds quite a bit like Unix, doesn't it? They also create that directory "Program Files", which, pretty much, sounds like good old /usr/bin. Or maybe /usr/add-on/bin. But you get the idea.

However: Every application vendor in creation, including Microsoft, wrote every directory they could think of in Windows 3.x. They kept it up in Windows 9.x because, well, it would cost MONEY to change already operating code.

Hence: in order not to break random applications, the default permissions of Joe Random User on Windows NT, 2000, XP, and 2003 was set to "Administrator". That's Unix root to you. And the virus and worms, well, they're running, when they do run, with the same permissions as the user who's running the web browsers, mail clients, etc. System files overwritten, anybody?

Under Linux/Unix, from day one, all application programs run with the same permissions as the Joe Random User. Joe gets hacked - and it's still user permissions. The virus can't get into the system files. Any infection is really hard to get started. And really hard, nearly impossible, to hide.

Want to install a graphics driver? You gotta log on as _root_ on a Linux system to do it. Want to install Open Office? You gotta log on as root. Change graphics resolution? Well, most cases, you can do that because the graphics driver people made that a user-settable bit of data in the user's home directory. Or they really, truly parse any strings you pass the graphics program and judiciously use the suid program to write configuration data to selected system directories. Or, you log on as root.

Result: With a Linux/Unix system you log in as root from time to time to install or remove stuff or maybe do stuff with drivers and such. 99% of the time you run logged in as normal user. The difference is cleanly delimited, everybody who writes code for Unix/Linux knows about the model, and things work swimmingly. Yeah, you need two passwords, one for user, one for root, but that's it. And one really doesn't use root too often.

So, with Vista, Microsoft and the application people have bit the bullet. They're trying, hard, to work their way up to something like the Unix security model. It's well-proven that a model at least vaguely like that keeps the hackers out. They're trying to keep user-level programs from getting to the system files. For that matter, they're _really_ trying to keep people from opening up and writing random directories all over the place.. Like DOS and Windows 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x did.

They got big problems. Tons of application code still thinks it can write random files in its own program directories. While running under user permissions. Oops. If one tries to lock down programs so the only writing that goes on is in c:\Documents and Settings\joe_user\application_data\random_app, one discovers that said random_apps don't write where they're supposed to.

For that matter there are graphics drivers that like to save their settings in c:\winnt. And change it all the time. While running as user. Oops.

Microsoft has put in the wildest set of double-indirection, back-assward, code-hanging-out-sideways attempts to get to a Unix/Linux (or better) permissions model. Users still get to be "Administrator" by default, but "Administrator", which used to be like unix root and could do anything, is no longer running at a true root-like permission level. There are higher levels of permissions that are roughly hidden. The UAC stuff is, well, like logging on as root on a Unix system. But, since the application programs were pretty much originally written to write data all over the place (and this includes Windows components as well!), the UAC keeps on popping up like a jackrabbit.

But you can see where they're making the attempt. Try to create a directory called d:\quickenbackup and dump files in there? "Hey!" Windows says, "That's a system level directory, you can't do that!" And the attempt is failed.

I imagine that as time goes on various application developers are going to realize the errors of their ways and start writing to the Vista security model. Three years from now a normal user will likely rarely see a UAC window because due to service packs from Microsoft and newer programs from places like Intuit.

However, the new security model is going to mean changes in the habits of Users, like us. On a Linux system I wouldn't DREAM of putting a /quickenbackup in the root drive. It's simply not done. In /home/my_user_name/quickenbackup, sure.

On Windows systems: When you want to put in a backup directory, the general idea is to put such things in a directory space where you _know_ you're supposed to have read/write permissions. Like, for the prime, in-your-face, no-kidding, Microsoft is giving you a Hint with #12 boots and a 2x4 example, in c:\Documents and Settings\your_user_name\My Documents. Also known as Start->My Documents. That's what that directory is there for - for you to play with and stick in whatever you want!

This also explains why, Don, you could successfully write to the root directory of removable media. Well, come to think of it, that's precisely what Linux/Unix systems do, too!

Hope this explanation helps. And stop writing to the root of the c:\ drive!

Ken Becker

You have yet to show that you are "right" at all. You claim it and offer no prove. But prove isn't required there because it's just an opinion.

I have all the room in the world, especially to call you stupid ya dumb f*ck.

You call that a reason?!? Here's a clue. Don't ever join a debating team...

Says who? You? So what? A bunch of other people stuck in the '60's? BFD.

What the f*ck does "binaries" have to do with anything? Here's another clue sweetheart - HTML ain't binary! Try taking a look at it sometime. Shows how much you know about it. It's not do I care or don't I care rather what you talk about it irrelevant because you don't understand anything that's going on. You just want to force others to do it your way. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Hi, Ken.

Thanks for that very informative and interesting read.

I've been running Vista since the beta, but I cut my computer teeth on the original TRS-80, starting with Level I (4K) BASIC in December 1977. Since I've always been just one guy with one computer and no users but me, I've never had to learn anything about permissions and such, so Vista is adding greatly to my education. I've still got a lot to learn. The UAC prompts are much less, now that all my usual apps are installed. About the only time I see one nowadays is when I'm opening Command Prompt as Administrator, so that I can use the good old DOS command equivalents to do stuff that the UI won't let me do. Or when I'm installing a new driver or application that I've downloaded. Or when I'm trying to configure a user account for my

I'll snip most of your post in the interest of space and bandwidth, Ken, but that's not a reflection on its value!

RC

Actually it was a bit long and at times a bit off (and yes I've done and understand all of what he said). IOW I think a lot of it only confused matters further and was loosely related...

When you think about it there was no need to quote any of what Ken said since you really did not refer to any part but just made comments about it as a whole.

FWIW, it's now WinMail.exe. And one feature that I think is gone, although it may have been removed in later OE versions, is the ability to set a custom indenting prefix for replies. Now all you have, for both plain text and HTML, is a checkbox to turn indenting on or off. Perhaps this was done to try to force conformity (which seems to be your passion) and, unlike Andrew, I don't oppose this effort.

That is not compelling enough. This is a discussion group and, when I am

Technically I agree with Andrew; socially I agree with you, Laura and others. I choose to side with Andrew when I am replying to him, although I respect the opinion of those who disagree with me.

As I stated before, I do not originate HTML; I only reply to it. Even for Andrew's posts, if someone else replies to him and converts his post to plain text and I reply to them, my reply will be in plain text.

Furthermore, although I haven't tested it, the "Reply to messages using the format in which they were sent" setting seems to apply to both Mail and News. I don't want you or anyone else telling me how to handle my private mail and I refuse to constantly have to toggle this setting just to keep you happy.

In addition, Andrew is not ignorant. In some areas he is the *only* expert in this group. Although many of us were focusing in on the original problem in this thread, the problem might never have been solved without his expertise. And I don't hear the OP complaining about the HTML; his problems got solved and isn't that the most important issue? Tolerance is the operative word here.

I think the proper fix for this issue, if indeed one is needed, is technical. If only plain text is acceptable in a set of NGs, then news servers need the ability to recognize this fact and refuse to distribute HTML for such NGs. That's the only thing that will stop Andrew. A more convincing argument might sway me, but you're going to have to dig deeper.

Jerry

P.S. I agree with Andrew: Who are you? Trying to bully us without even identifying yourself. I consider that REALLY RUDE.