Reprinted from eWeek posting

This behavior is basically Microsoft needing to deal with how older setup applications have always worked since the early days of Windows. (Vista *does* have a newer format that allows permissions to be explicitly defined ahead of time, but few applications use this... today.) Other operating systems do things differently, which was the point of my comments to Joe.

Example: OS X has two installation methods: drag-install or via a setup package. The drag-install method is what you see in 75% of the apps out there: you mount the disk image and simply drag the application icon to where you want it. Because the icon is actually a directory, all of its contents come with it. Assuming you don't drag the application to a sensitive directory, you won't get prompted. Personally, I love this feature and think it's incredibly intuitive and natural — why "run a setup program" when you can simply move the app to where you want it?

The second OS X method involves running an actual setup program. In this case, the installer inspects what is called a Bill of Materials (BOM) that specifies exactly what files should be installed, and what privileges they require. The installer uses the BOM to determine whether it needs elevated privilges to install the app. Apple's BOM method isn't perfect, but it works quite well for the most part.

In UNIX, the prevailing installer methods are either simply file copies (like when you compile an application and type "make install") or a package format like Debian's APT or Red Hat's RPM, which have "manifests" in them enumerating what files need to be installed. In these cases, the installers either will make a determination that you need (or don't need) elevated privileges, or will simply fail to install unless you elevate.

My point with this lengthy post isn't to suggest that Linux or Mac are better, although I do believe in this case they've had the benefit of learning from the legacy Windows installer experiences. Vista's next-generation technologies for this are promising, but for now we've got a whole boatload of legacy stuff to deal with. Hence Joanna's objection.

We are here conversing about metrics. Attendees (about 26) include Fred, Betsy Nichols, Russell Thomas, Jason Zann, Mark Kadrich, Andy Sudbury, Phebe Waterfield, Jeremy Epstein, Brian Darby, Kedar Dhuru, Eddie Schwartz, Raffael Marty. Keynote speaker is John Guinasso, CISO of Business Objects. Agenda:

0900: As attendees arrive, round table discussions start on the needs for and applications of metrics.
1000: Each round table will present a briefing on the discussions held.
1015: Welcome and introduction to the conference by our hosts.
1030: Keynote: John Guinasso, CISO: “What I get today and what I wish I had for security metrics”
1045: Russell Cameron Thomas - “Total Cost of (In)security.” - 30-minute talk (+ discussions).
1130: Technology demonstrations (not products - technologies).
1145: Lunch break – proceed to the campus eateries for lunch.
1245: Round table discussions start on criteria for the acceptance and utility of metrics.
1345: Each round table will present a briefing on the discussions held.
1400: Fred Cohen - “A Fault Model ... for Metrics” 30-minute (+ discussions).
1445: Afternoon break
1500: Mini-talks and impromptu group discussions by participants AND planning for MetriCon '07
1600: Summary of the day

Full agenda is on Fred's website