3 ms·

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 enco

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.
      - hirsin 10y ago
        You compile it to each architecture before you send it to the Store. There's a compilation option to create a .appxbundle, which contains the bits for each arch. It's basically the same as iOS fat binaries.
        shmerl 10y ago
        OK, that makes more sense.
- iamcreasy 10y ago
  > So what you're saying is, Windows should not strive to meet any sort of basic security capability? It should, but at this cost. > Epic Games can merge Microsoft's fork if they want. (Bear in mind, pull requests start as forks.) Epic games won't. In fact, our conversation starts following the article interviewing Tim Sweeney. I highly doubt if MS will ever be able to convince Epic games to do that. Also in the future what's stopping MS from forcing developers to use Microsoft store, followed by restriction on the type of content, followed by...more restrictions. The trust issue is very big here. It's also true that MS have changed their attitude recently after Satya Nadella became the CEO, but when both Tim Sweeney and Gabe Newell is worried about something - I think the issue deserves more attention. > 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. He is saying it will be wiser for the community at large to choose user freedom over poorly implemented security policies.

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.
    - hirsin 10y ago
      You compile it to each architecture before you send it to the Store. There's a compilation option to create a .appxbundle, which contains the bits for each arch. It's basically the same as iOS fat binaries.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        OK, that makes more sense.
iamcreasy 10y ago
> So what you're saying is, Windows should not strive to meet any sort of basic security capability? It should, but at this cost. > Epic Games can merge Microsoft's fork if they want. (Bear in mind, pull requests start as forks.) Epic games won't. In fact, our conversation starts following the article interviewing Tim Sweeney. I highly doubt if MS will ever be able to convince Epic games to do that. Also in the future what's stopping MS from forcing developers to use Microsoft store, followed by restriction on the type of content, followed by...more restrictions. The trust issue is very big here. It's also true that MS have changed their attitude recently after Satya Nadella became the CEO, but when both Tim Sweeney and Gabe Newell is worried about something - I think the issue deserves more attention. > 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. He is saying it will be wiser for the community at large to choose user freedom over poorly implemented security policies.