4 ms·

"Windows is a mess because you can install a virus executable on it." "You can't install Windows software outside App Store anymore, MS is taking muh freedoms.

by tdkl 10y ago

"Windows is a mess because you can install a virus executable on it." "You can't install Windows software outside App Store anymore, MS is taking muh freedoms." You can't win.

UweSchmidt 10y ago
Uhm, definitively let me install software on my computer when/how I want? Get the security model right, works for unix.
raesene6 10y ago
There absolutely is a trade-off here between freedom to operate and likely security (with the exception of highly skilled technical people with a lot of time on their hands, who can likely have both). Personally I'd say that most non-technical computer users are better off using a more locked down/secure OS (e.g. iOS) as they are generally ill-equipped to manage an open computing platform with the current level of threats that there are out there.
zepto 10y ago
You actually can win. Apple makes the choice with iOS to be closed. People hate on that because they distrust a centralized authority with good reason, however it is far safer for those who don't mind giving up control. Google makes the choice with Android to be open. People hate on that because they want the system to be safe, however it is in the control of the end user for those who don't mind taking responsibility for the safety of their own device. Both absolutely win at what they are trying to be. MS on the other hand tries to pretend to be both while actually not delivering the benefits of either. That is certainly a way not to win.
burkaman 10y ago
You definitely can't win, but those two complaints are not mutually exclusive. Instead of locking down apps to solve the first problem, in theory Microsoft could have redesigned Windows to make third party executables less of a risk. Obviously that's harder, but it's not hypocritical to make both those statements.
- tdkl 10y ago
  I'm not exactly a fan of those, but I think MS is already doing that with UWP, which apps weren't exactly greeted with rejoice.
  - mtgx 10y ago
    UWP apps can't be run outside of the MS store. So that's the lock-in he was talking about. It would be nice if Microsoft enabled "mini-VMs" for legacy x86 apps at least. That way it could shoot two birds with one stone - make x86 apps a little slower and more resource intensive, and thus give both users and developers a reason to switch to UWP, while at the same time it would also make legacy x86 apps vastly more secure.
    - tdkl 10y ago
      I think you can sideload them since 1607 (or even 1511?), there's a developer switch in new Control panel for that.
    - amyjess 10y ago
      Windows 10 allows you to turn on sideloading. Going through the Windows Store is no longer a requirement.
      - pawadu 10y ago
        but then again, how is that different from android of today?
- slrz 10y ago
  The problem with that is that you can't tell programmatically if a potentially risky action is performed by a program acting as the user's agent or by a program acting on behalf of some malicious fuckwit. You can just forbid it, sure, but then you're reducing the usefulness of your platform.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
4rtemis 10y ago
You can win. Sane defaults. Allowing the potentially unsafe method "expert mode" is OptIn. I wouldn't buy a car if the dealer held the only key to the hood, still I don't expect everyone to be a grease monkey nor do I think it remarkably safe.
- tdkl 10y ago
  What's "insane" about explicitly having to opt-in to 3rd party application installs in Android ? That switch existed for years and was praised upon. The media opinion only shifted after Android becoming most widely distributed phone OS. It's just easy clicks. Android is fine.
  - 4rtemis 10y ago
    I'm in agreement with you and that's what I was saying or tried to say. Opting into 3rd party installs is fine with me, having the option disabled is a "sane default".
  - mtgx 10y ago
    I agree with the first comment, but Android is "not fine". The lack of a sane updating model is a real security problem.
    - 4rtemis 10y ago
      Yeah, Android's not fine. The business model, the weak full disk encryption, inability to set strong FDE password separate from your pin, centralization around Google Play Services, moving AOSP into GAPPS iteratively, forced obsolecense via carriers/hardware producers Long way to go.
Pxtl 10y ago
Android could let me add a specific source so I don't have all-or-nothing security. For example, I only wish to install apps from HumbleBundle and F-Droid (in addition to the default play store). Any other APK that lands on my system is still untrustworthy. Of course, this would probably require additional signature on the APK, since I think all 3rd party sources are just providing raw APKs.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dep_b 10y ago
Except Microsoft provides updates for Windows longer than any other popular desktop or mobile operating system. So if crap gets installed because of an OS vulnerability either you didn't update or it that flaw will be patched as soon as possible.

by tdkl 10y ago

"Windows is a mess because you can install a virus executable on it." "You can't install Windows software outside App Store anymore, MS is taking muh freedoms." You can't win.

UweSchmidt 10y ago

Uhm, definitively let me install software on my computer when/how I want? Get the security model right, works for unix.

raesene6 10y ago

There absolutely is a trade-off here between freedom to operate and likely security (with the exception of highly skilled technical people with a lot of time on their hands, who can likely have both). Personally I'd say that most non-technical computer users are better off using a more locked down/secure OS (e.g. iOS) as they are generally ill-equipped to manage an open computing platform with the current level of threats that there are out there.

zepto 10y ago

You actually can win. Apple makes the choice with iOS to be closed. People hate on that because they distrust a centralized authority with good reason, however it is far safer for those who don't mind giving up control. Google makes the choice with Android to be open. People hate on that because they want the system to be safe, however it is in the control of the end user for those who don't mind taking responsibility for the safety of their own device. Both absolutely win at what they are trying to be. MS on the other hand tries to pretend to be both while actually not delivering the benefits of either. That is certainly a way not to win.

burkaman 10y ago

You definitely can't win, but those two complaints are not mutually exclusive. Instead of locking down apps to solve the first problem, in theory Microsoft could have redesigned Windows to make third party executables less of a risk. Obviously that's harder, but it's not hypocritical to make both those statements.

tdkl 10y ago
I'm not exactly a fan of those, but I think MS is already doing that with UWP, which apps weren't exactly greeted with rejoice.
- mtgx 10y ago
  UWP apps can't be run outside of the MS store. So that's the lock-in he was talking about. It would be nice if Microsoft enabled "mini-VMs" for legacy x86 apps at least. That way it could shoot two birds with one stone - make x86 apps a little slower and more resource intensive, and thus give both users and developers a reason to switch to UWP, while at the same time it would also make legacy x86 apps vastly more secure.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    I think you can sideload them since 1607 (or even 1511?), there's a developer switch in new Control panel for that.
  - amyjess 10y ago
    Windows 10 allows you to turn on sideloading. Going through the Windows Store is no longer a requirement.
    - pawadu 10y ago
      but then again, how is that different from android of today?
slrz 10y ago
The problem with that is that you can't tell programmatically if a potentially risky action is performed by a program acting as the user's agent or by a program acting on behalf of some malicious fuckwit. You can just forbid it, sure, but then you're reducing the usefulness of your platform.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

4rtemis 10y ago

You can win. Sane defaults. Allowing the potentially unsafe method "expert mode" is OptIn. I wouldn't buy a car if the dealer held the only key to the hood, still I don't expect everyone to be a grease monkey nor do I think it remarkably safe.

tdkl 10y ago
What's "insane" about explicitly having to opt-in to 3rd party application installs in Android ? That switch existed for years and was praised upon. The media opinion only shifted after Android becoming most widely distributed phone OS. It's just easy clicks. Android is fine.
- 4rtemis 10y ago
  I'm in agreement with you and that's what I was saying or tried to say. Opting into 3rd party installs is fine with me, having the option disabled is a "sane default".
- mtgx 10y ago
  I agree with the first comment, but Android is "not fine". The lack of a sane updating model is a real security problem.
  - 4rtemis 10y ago
    Yeah, Android's not fine. The business model, the weak full disk encryption, inability to set strong FDE password separate from your pin, centralization around Google Play Services, moving AOSP into GAPPS iteratively, forced obsolecense via carriers/hardware producers Long way to go.

Pxtl 10y ago

Android could let me add a specific source so I don't have all-or-nothing security. For example, I only wish to install apps from HumbleBundle and F-Droid (in addition to the default play store). Any other APK that lands on my system is still untrustworthy. Of course, this would probably require additional signature on the APK, since I think all 3rd party sources are just providing raw APKs.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dep_b 10y ago

Except Microsoft provides updates for Windows longer than any other popular desktop or mobile operating system. So if crap gets installed because of an OS vulnerability either you didn't update or it that flaw will be patched as soon as possible.