5 ms·

> That UWP apps are sandboxed (like Android and iOS apps) and therefore less able to act maliciously. Many people don't want Console/phone like restriction on

> That UWP apps are sandboxed (like Android and iOS apps) and therefore less able to act maliciously. Many people don't want Console/phone like restriction on PC. Sweeney feared that MS will try to force everybody to use UWP, and later MS will change UWP policies. But then it will be late for everybody move away from UWP. How many people you know downloads the apk on their android phone to get the app running? Do you have any say on the Google Play policy changes? MS will certainly repeat how convenient UWP is, but people are reluctant to trust MS because they don't know how MS will behave in the future. That's what Tim Sweeney fears. Phasing out the open nature of the ecosystem, and replacing it with a locked down one where MS controls everything. And that's a lock down. Maybe it's not for malicious reason, but people have enough reason to hold on onto the open nature that drove the growth of PC gaming(and malware). Secondly, when they don't know if MS will keep their words.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
There is nothing inherently "open" about the current system. Windows is a closed source platform and Microsoft can write it to block whatever they want to. If they wanted to block Win32 apps, they could. (SmartScreen, by default, DOES, if they're not appropriately signed or commonly downloaded.) The idea that encouraging user level apps to use UWP because it is safer does not inherently mean some draconian lockdown is coming. If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it. But Microsoft choosing to use competent security in app design has nothing to do with it.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > There's nothing you can do about it. Indeed. Except switching to open platform.
- iamcreasy 10y ago
  I didn't mean 'open' or 'close'. I meant 'less restrictive' or 'more restrictive'. Win32 is less restrictive, and UWP is more restrictive. > The idea that encouraging user level apps to use UWP because it is safer does not inherently mean some draconian lockdown is coming. All market places (google play, steam, apple app store) has restrictions. I haven't made app for any one of them, but I am certain there are policies people disagree with, and policies that has lead an app to be removed from the store or some app not getting past the the screening process. On Win32 you don't have that. You can build something, post it anywhere, anybody can download and run it without any hiccup. This fluidity has made PC where it is today. Also there are trust issues. Sweeney said, "The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it’s a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store." > If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it. Yes there is. In fact that's why this thread exists. MS has added UWP feature because Epic games won't do it. Steam has also released SteamOS. It's more users that MS wants. Security comes later. And as long as the developers are taking a stand against restrictive UWP, MS will leave UWP behind. And hopefully next time they will take a different route. Least restrictive nature is the hallmark of PC. I can't stress it enough.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    So what you're saying is, Windows should not strive to meet any sort of basic security capability? Because that's all UWP is: A more secure design. Win32 is only "less restrictive" than UWP in one particular way: It allows any application to mess with almost anything in your system without warning or user permission. Anyone can download and run UWP without any hiccup. In actuality, Win32 does have hiccups: UAC elevation, SmartScreen filtering, etc. Steam can sell UWP apps if they want. Epic Games can merge Microsoft's fork if they want. (Bear in mind, pull requests start as forks.) Microsoft has the users, it needs the security so it doesn't lose those users. Tim Sweeney is paranoid in the wrong ways, he's suggesting that you have to leave a poorly secured operating system in order to protect user freedom. That's false.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      > So what you're saying is, Windows should not strive to meet any sort of basic security capability? Because that's all UWP is: A more secure design. Its development is rather weird though. If I understood correctly, part of the build process is out of developers' hands, and is supposed to be performed by distributor which supports UWP (especially for different architectures). Is UWP backend toolchain and implementation even available for other distributors besides Windows Store? If yes, then it's not a distributor lock-in. But if no, then Tim Sweeney was perfectly right criticizing it.
      - hirsin 10y ago
        I think you may be misinformed. You can build an app and install it using VS. You don't even need VS, apps are just exe's in zip files. Compile and lay it out right and you're done. The Store isn't required to do any of that, so I don't know what the "UWP backend" is. You might look at Hockey app (pre acquisition) for evidence of an app distributor that wasn't Microsoft.
        shmerl 10y ago
        How does UWP achieve architecture agnostic releases then? They claimed it's part of the UWP design.
nix0n 10y ago
> How many people you know downloads the apk on their android phone to get the app running? Most of the PC gamers I know (maybe all) did this on the day Pokemon GO was available in NZ/Aus but not NA. Probably few of them had done it before. I understand what you're saying, but PC gamers are a different crowd than the average Windows user. We'll do what we have to in order to get control of our own PCs back. I guess on the one hand the lock down is a rational fear, because it's something MS would attempt. But I'm not actually scared that it would be achievable.
- kkarakk 10y ago
  This is only because Pokemon GO made the decision not to roll out in all countries but somehow still work in those countries. i'd like to see the business logic behind that implementation. i had to help tons of people side load apps on their phones because they were turned off by the malicious warning that most manufacturers place by default now on activating sideloading functionality

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

There is nothing inherently "open" about the current system. Windows is a closed source platform and Microsoft can write it to block whatever they want to. If they wanted to block Win32 apps, they could. (SmartScreen, by default, DOES, if they're not appropriately signed or commonly downloaded.) The idea that encouraging user level apps to use UWP because it is safer does not inherently mean some draconian lockdown is coming. If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it. But Microsoft choosing to use competent security in app design has nothing to do with it.

shmerl 10y ago
> There's nothing you can do about it. Indeed. Except switching to open platform.
iamcreasy 10y ago
I didn't mean 'open' or 'close'. I meant 'less restrictive' or 'more restrictive'. Win32 is less restrictive, and UWP is more restrictive. > The idea that encouraging user level apps to use UWP because it is safer does not inherently mean some draconian lockdown is coming. All market places (google play, steam, apple app store) has restrictions. I haven't made app for any one of them, but I am certain there are policies people disagree with, and policies that has lead an app to be removed from the store or some app not getting past the the screening process. On Win32 you don't have that. You can build something, post it anywhere, anybody can download and run it without any hiccup. This fluidity has made PC where it is today. Also there are trust issues. Sweeney said, "The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it’s a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store." > If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it. Yes there is. In fact that's why this thread exists. MS has added UWP feature because Epic games won't do it. Steam has also released SteamOS. It's more users that MS wants. Security comes later. And as long as the developers are taking a stand against restrictive UWP, MS will leave UWP behind. And hopefully next time they will take a different route. Least restrictive nature is the hallmark of PC. I can't stress it enough.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  So what you're saying is, Windows should not strive to meet any sort of basic security capability? Because that's all UWP is: A more secure design. Win32 is only "less restrictive" than UWP in one particular way: It allows any application to mess with almost anything in your system without warning or user permission. Anyone can download and run UWP without any hiccup. In actuality, Win32 does have hiccups: UAC elevation, SmartScreen filtering, etc. Steam can sell UWP apps if they want. Epic Games can merge Microsoft's fork if they want. (Bear in mind, pull requests start as forks.) Microsoft has the users, it needs the security so it doesn't lose those users. Tim Sweeney is paranoid in the wrong ways, he's suggesting that you have to leave a poorly secured operating system in order to protect user freedom. That's false.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > So what you're saying is, Windows should not strive to meet any sort of basic security capability? Because that's all UWP is: A more secure design. Its development is rather weird though. If I understood correctly, part of the build process is out of developers' hands, and is supposed to be performed by distributor which supports UWP (especially for different architectures). Is UWP backend toolchain and implementation even available for other distributors besides Windows Store? If yes, then it's not a distributor lock-in. But if no, then Tim Sweeney was perfectly right criticizing it.
    - hirsin 10y ago
      I think you may be misinformed. You can build an app and install it using VS. You don't even need VS, apps are just exe's in zip files. Compile and lay it out right and you're done. The Store isn't required to do any of that, so I don't know what the "UWP backend" is. You might look at Hockey app (pre acquisition) for evidence of an app distributor that wasn't Microsoft.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        How does UWP achieve architecture agnostic releases then? They claimed it's part of the UWP design.

nix0n 10y ago

> How many people you know downloads the apk on their android phone to get the app running? Most of the PC gamers I know (maybe all) did this on the day Pokemon GO was available in NZ/Aus but not NA. Probably few of them had done it before. I understand what you're saying, but PC gamers are a different crowd than the average Windows user. We'll do what we have to in order to get control of our own PCs back. I guess on the one hand the lock down is a rational fear, because it's something MS would attempt. But I'm not actually scared that it would be achievable.

kkarakk 10y ago
This is only because Pokemon GO made the decision not to roll out in all countries but somehow still work in those countries. i'd like to see the business logic behind that implementation. i had to help tons of people side load apps on their phones because they were turned off by the malicious warning that most manufacturers place by default now on activating sideloading functionality