5 ms·

> they [desktop apps] really want to move to the new app platform anyway 1. Stop anthropomorphizing desktop apps, they don't like it. 2. Can't tell if the aut

by mrec 11y ago

> they [desktop apps] really want to move to the new app platform anyway 1. Stop anthropomorphizing desktop apps, they don't like it. 2. Can't tell if the author means "desktop devs want to" (false IMO), "desktop devs ought to" (also false IMO) or "MS wants desktop devs to" (undeniably true). 3. It depresses me that just as MS is genuinely 'getting' open source, they're completely missing the appeal and value of an open platform. One step forward, two steps back. EDIT:typo

bitwize 11y ago
I think the referent for "they" here is "Microsoft", not "desktop apps".
bad_user 11y ago
I don't see how MS is getting open source. What makes people say that? Is it the 14 years it took for them to open-source .NET Core, an event that is happening at a point in time when .NET is most irrelevant? What really pisses me off however is that it's 2015 and Windows 10 and Outlook still don't support CardDAV and CalDAV. They'll get their hand forced by market pressure of course and as usual they'll end up supporting the minimum they can to get away with, which means they'll provide special hooks for Google and probably iCloud. All of this in the context of Edge, yet another buggy and proprietary incarnation of IExplorer in a world in which Chromium and Firefox exist. And of course, we mustn't forget the patents racketeering they are doing at the expense of the open-source projects that compete with them But oh boy did they change. Their PR department is genius though.
edgyswingset 11y ago
> "MS wants desktop devs to" (undeniably true) What makes you say this, the publishing of a third app model for Windows, messaging, some combination of the two, something else?
- mrec 11y ago
  Both, plus the fact that significant new tech infrastructure projects like the Windows Runtime are (mostly) restricted to Store apps. I'm not anti- app stores or declarative UI in general, and I think things like standardized sandboxing would be great for many desktop apps too. But a platform that places you at the whim of a single distribution path, and cripples portability to boot, isn't worth it.

by mrec 11y ago

bitwize 11y ago

I think the referent for "they" here is "Microsoft", not "desktop apps".

bad_user 11y ago

I don't see how MS is getting open source. What makes people say that? Is it the 14 years it took for them to open-source .NET Core, an event that is happening at a point in time when .NET is most irrelevant? What really pisses me off however is that it's 2015 and Windows 10 and Outlook still don't support CardDAV and CalDAV. They'll get their hand forced by market pressure of course and as usual they'll end up supporting the minimum they can to get away with, which means they'll provide special hooks for Google and probably iCloud. All of this in the context of Edge, yet another buggy and proprietary incarnation of IExplorer in a world in which Chromium and Firefox exist. And of course, we mustn't forget the patents racketeering they are doing at the expense of the open-source projects that compete with them But oh boy did they change. Their PR department is genius though.

edgyswingset 11y ago

> "MS wants desktop devs to" (undeniably true) What makes you say this, the publishing of a third app model for Windows, messaging, some combination of the two, something else?

mrec 11y ago
Both, plus the fact that significant new tech infrastructure projects like the Windows Runtime are (mostly) restricted to Store apps. I'm not anti- app stores or declarative UI in general, and I think things like standardized sandboxing would be great for many desktop apps too. But a platform that places you at the whim of a single distribution path, and cripples portability to boot, isn't worth it.