Spring RTS Engine

C:\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Application Data\springsettings...

what the fuck guys? is there a way to just use a config stored in the spring dir? honestly....

I CANNOT ACCESS THAT FOLDER IN VISTA!

so.. why the hell? I know it was discussed a while back in the dev forum and there was talk that this stuff was an option? what the heck? why why why...

Why are you screaming?
C:\Users\user\AppData\Local

infolog.txt will tell you which config file it tries to use.

smoth wrote:what the fuck guys? is there a way to just use a config stored in the spring dir? honestly....

you must give the app admin privileges, which is annoying and a security hole.

If you want to be upset, do it at Microsoft for putting in nice convenient symlinks that YOU CAN'T CLICK ON.

lurker wrote:If you want to be upset, do it at Microsoft for putting in nice convenient symlinks that YOU CAN'T CLICK ON.

Yeah that really is pretty annoying.

perhaps we should be telling people where to look for it by giving them paths with windows environment variables in them so theyre the same on 2000 XP vista and 7 and not hodge podge

aegis wrote:you must give the app admin privileges, which is annoying and a security hole.

How is it a security hole?

because an unsecured app has just gained administrator privilledges due to it being written badly, leaving a gaping hole for worms viruses and trojans to jump through into the system.

Its basically the same as saying that its just ok for the mob to be outside your house as it is inside, if they demand to get through the door what harm is there in letting them inside?

AF wrote:because an unsecured app has just gained administrator privilledges due to it being written badly, leaving a gaping hole for worms viruses and trojans to jump through into the system.

Its basically the same as saying that its just ok for the mob to be outside your house as it is inside, if they demand to get through the door what harm is there in letting them inside?

Firstly if a pc user manages to get his pc infected by a virus it will not make any difference if Spring has admin privileges.

Second, no it is not the same as the dumbass example with a mob.

It does, but I don't have to justify it to you, because Linux already does this, and its a commonly accepted good security practice, and microsoft aren't going to hardcode a special exception for spring.

Go argue with the thousands of computer security experts instead

It matters for silent infection, it doesn't matter if it 'just' wants to delete all my files. With the mob example, I guess all my files are... in an unlocked shack in my yard, and the mob has already burst through the first-level fence security?

AF, the entire path is a single environment var, and it's not one anybody should be expected to know.

i hate it when stuff does this. settings put in registry is already irritating - can't programs simply be all-inclusive on its installation directory? other than trying to prevent copyright infringement, it really makes the most sense

Making games need to run as root don't make sense. Never.

I have a proposed solution to this:
Add a super advanced mode to springsettings, which is just an edit box that loads up springsettings.conf and lets you edit and save it.

hunterw wrote:i hate it when stuff does this. settings put in registry is already irritating - can't programs simply be all-inclusive on its installation directory? other than trying to prevent copyright infringement, it really makes the most sense

Good lord do I agree, but since program files is locked down, there goes that wishlist.

No reason why ti cant look in the immediate folder first, it may already do so even. Not really useful for program files, but usb drives definately

hunterw wrote:i hate it when stuff does this. settings put in registry is already irritating - can't programs simply be all-inclusive on its installation directory? other than trying to prevent copyright infringement, it really makes the most sense

This is the thinking of people who grew up with DOS and pre-2000 Windows, which were never designed to operate in a multi-user, networked environment.

The user should not have write access to the program directory, so the pogram the user runs cannot write to it's own directory. Also, different users will have different settings, but should be able to share the program install. To add to that, a program should be startable regardless of where it is installed. And you should not have to copy the installed program when backing up your personal data.

Dividing a system into seperate program and data parts makes perfect sense.

Boirunner wrote:This is the thinking of people who grew up with DOS and pre-2000 Windows, which were never designed to operate in a multi-user, networked environment.

In the gaming context the user base usually consists of either a single user or users that are family members, and a network that consists of a couple of PCs connected to a soho router. I'd argue that multi-user security paradigms are redundant and unnecessary in such a context.

Boirunner wrote:Dividing a system into seperate program and data parts makes perfect sense.

This is also what people thought until von Neumann came along and advanced the field of computing from glorified calculators into what they are today.


edit: I agree with following the present guidelines for software; this is just food for thought or something.

Peet wrote:

Boirunner wrote:

Boirunner wrote:Dividing a system into seperate program and data parts makes perfect sense.

This is also what people thought until von Neumann came along and advanced the field of computing from glorified calculators into what they are today.

advanced calculator architectures such as DSP are back having different data & program paths using the harvard architecture