# Microsoft Patents Sudo?!!



## dennylin93 (Nov 12, 2009)

This is just ridiculous: Microsoft Patents Sudo?!!.


----------



## SirDice (Nov 12, 2009)

I haven't read the patent itself but there's no way that's going to stick. Simply because of something called "prior art".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art


----------



## graudeejs (Nov 12, 2009)

Oh brother.... When ever my anger against MS is calming down, they remind me how evil they are.


----------



## vermaden (Nov 12, 2009)

They also patented double click so that does not surprise me.


----------



## wlohman (Nov 12, 2009)

Hmmmm

As much as I agree with the stance on software patents, this isn't exactly sudo. The way I read it, bare with me, is that when a user runs a MS equivalent of `vi /etc/fstab`, the system will pop up a dialogue saying "You dear $USER do not have sufficient rights, but these users do: ${list_of_users_with_sufficient_rights} would you like to run this command as one of them?"

And then, voila! A password dialogue for the account selected.

This makes it a lot different from sudo, where the current user account is either allowed or denied the right per sudoers file. But not much unlike the 'run as other user' option in (for example) KDE, except that it's interactive rather than static.


But it's hardly rocket science. One could write a script that checks for permissions and proposes a list of accounts with the proper permissions. Grepping the passwd and group file against the target file permissions is enough.


If they are so determined to keep their patent system the way it is, they should at least adjust it so that every patent that is replicable with a bash script is null and void.


----------



## MG (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't think it works. At least I never experienced a real superuser status in Windows. There are always files and processes that can't be killed and the system core is protected against the curious with a giant maze of components all interacting with each other without any logic.

I remember one of the earlier versions of XP that was able to browse files and internet without explorer.exe running. It's just all fake.


----------



## Ruler2112 (Nov 12, 2009)

MG said:
			
		

> I don't think it works.
> 
> 
> ...a giant maze of components all interacting with each other without any logic.



These are quite possibly the two best descriptive phrases pertaining to M$ that I've ever read! :e


----------



## SirDice (Nov 12, 2009)

MG said:
			
		

> I don't think it works. At least I never experienced a real superuser status in Windows.


There is, it's called "NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM" and it can do a whole lot more then administrator :e


----------



## dsrd (Nov 13, 2009)

*code*

It's too bad that Microsoft patented ones and zeros.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130

Sorry, I can't resist.  :e


----------



## phoenix (Nov 13, 2009)

wlohman said:
			
		

> As much as I agree with the stance on software patents, this isn't exactly sudo. The way I read it, bare with me, is that when a user runs a MS equivalent of `vi /etc/fstab`, the system will pop up a dialogue saying "You dear $USER do not have sufficient rights, but these users do: ${list_of_users_with_sufficient_rights} would you like to run this command as one of them?"
> 
> And then, voila! A password dialogue for the account selected.



Which is pretty much how gksudo and kdesudo work, and how *buntu has been configured for the past 3+ releases.


----------

