6 ms·

This really only affects distribution through the Windows Store, correct? I don't anything saying the execution of console emulation software is now impossible

by vlan0 10y ago

This really only affects distribution through the Windows Store, correct? I don't anything saying the execution of console emulation software is now impossible on Windows 10. While it is possible this is a slippery slope that leads to the case you are referring to. It's still not clear if it will ever reach that state.

izacus 10y ago
Until of course they disable installation from other sources than Windows Store in name of "malware protection and security". Boiling frogs and all that.
- throwanem 10y ago
  I doubt they'll attempt to disable execution of web content based on some "this is probably an emulator" heuristic. On the one hand, that'd instantly be circumvented into negligibility; on the other, the backlash would be epic. I also severely doubt they'll attempt to prevent installation of application binaries from sources other than the Windows store. If anyone were going to be dumb enough to attempt such a move, it'd have been Apple, years before now, and they never even came close. Microsoft isn't run by morons, either.
  - the8472 10y ago
    Webcontent is not a free platform. It does not even give you sockets which can interact with arbitrary network services without centralized control (no, websockets don't work because they can't listen, webrtc does not work because it needs rendezvous servers). And neither can it access your own filesystem. It is quite locked down. In a way you get compute cycles, but you don't get access to the machine's full capabilities. And they could trivially forbid loading file:// URLs or disable features for those since few people use those anyway, that way you would lose persistence and would be dependent on something to even host your software.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      I don't see where I made mention of any concept of freedom.
    - FeepingCreature 10y ago
      webrtc works fine. Rendezvous servers are a minimal cost, they're not involved beyond the setup, and you can run your own fairly easily. I'd argue it works better than sockets, especially for gaming, since there's no need to mess around with NAT.
      - the8472 10y ago
        It's about freedom to run your own software, it is not cost or "works fine". Webrtc has a dependency on and is controlled by a 3rd party. You can't talk to someone in the next room via webrtc without some party running the server and providing a service to you. If they decide to lock you out you can't use sockets anymore. With real sockets you can just send a multicast message to find all devices on the local network and talk to them directly.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        You can use any rendezvous server in the world. Even without free ones, you could buy access for $1 per decade. There is no third party in charge. There is just a requirement to use some party anywhere.
        the8472 10y ago
        Imagine you're in china. Do you really want the basic ability for two devices to talk to each other depend on something that goes over the internet? And they still have to agree on the same server, that provides a certain lock-in or inertia. Ultimately it means you have less control over your network connections than with real sockets. And for the purpose of discussion this about the freedom of running software on your computer and webcontent not being equivalent in that regard. With webrtc signalling servers you're just kicking the ball down the road because then you need to be able to run a server with access to real sockets on some other machine, just to use those poor imitations of sockets.
  - goodplay 10y ago
    If people are willing to accept restrictions on what can be obtained or sold on the store (falsely in that name of "safety"), what makes you think they wont accept restrictions on what websites they are allowed to load, or more likely, what website owners are allowed to host?
    - throwanem 10y ago
      I don't know. Nuance?
- cwyers 10y ago
  I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to ban, oh, just for starters: * Photoshop * Illustrator * Premier * Avid * Office * Visual Studio etc. etc. Legacy applications are a huge reason for people to use Windows. Blocking themselves off from that rich ecosystem of applications is basically begging people to use a Chromebook.
  - catdog 10y ago
    Easy, there will be special agreements for some of those bigger fish. And of course on the special versions of Windows enterprise customers get (which you can't buy individually that easy) this will still be allowed
    - izacus 10y ago
      Or you just side-step the issue by creating a "Tablet" or "Personal" version that's cheaper and never let arbitrary software run there. Just like Apple did - on iOS running arbitrary software isn't expected and they're slowly moving towards running it on more and more devices including TVs and "Pro" iPad hardware.
  - Lev1a 10y ago
    I mean, just try to imagine them blocking Steam and the impending shitstorm afterwards...
- vvanders 10y ago
  Yeah, that'll happen when hell freezes over. The one thing Microsoft holds above all else is backwards compatibility and this would break that in a million ways.
Lev1a 10y ago
I can only imagine from their apparent course that they'll lock out Win32 apps at some point and only allow installation/execution of software from the Windows store (and maybe some "partners", i.e. some companies that are too big to just lock out, like Valve, although they would probably have to pay a "fee" to have access to the Win10 audience). Blocking of Win32 apps/apps not from the Windows Store already exists today [0], although who knows how long until it is not "voluntary" anymore. The text in the message from the linked article kind of gives one of the future "reasons" Microsoft will probably use in the future for this kind of shit away ("Limiting installations to apps from the Store helps to keep your PC safe and reliable"). This development presents a VERY slippery slope. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/windows-10-creators-update-can-block-win32-apps-if-theyre-not-from-the-store/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/windo...
- vlan0 10y ago
  It's questionable whether this is currently a slippery slope. There is no precedence for this move on the PC platform. That alone weakens the argument that Microsoft will eventually make that move. To be clear, it is still possible, but there is not enough evidence to build a case that guarantees your conclusion. Edit: You could argue that the ChromeOS platform is an example of a completed locked ecosystem. I've never really considered Chromebooks to be a PCs, but I'm sure under some context they meet the classifications of a PC.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Under what context would a Chromebook not be a PC?
    - vlan0 10y ago
      By the broad definition used to define a PC, a Chromebook is a PC. My perception of a PC is just skewed.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago

by vlan0 10y ago

izacus 10y ago

Until of course they disable installation from other sources than Windows Store in name of "malware protection and security". Boiling frogs and all that.

throwanem 10y ago
I doubt they'll attempt to disable execution of web content based on some "this is probably an emulator" heuristic. On the one hand, that'd instantly be circumvented into negligibility; on the other, the backlash would be epic. I also severely doubt they'll attempt to prevent installation of application binaries from sources other than the Windows store. If anyone were going to be dumb enough to attempt such a move, it'd have been Apple, years before now, and they never even came close. Microsoft isn't run by morons, either.
- the8472 10y ago
  Webcontent is not a free platform. It does not even give you sockets which can interact with arbitrary network services without centralized control (no, websockets don't work because they can't listen, webrtc does not work because it needs rendezvous servers). And neither can it access your own filesystem. It is quite locked down. In a way you get compute cycles, but you don't get access to the machine's full capabilities. And they could trivially forbid loading file:// URLs or disable features for those since few people use those anyway, that way you would lose persistence and would be dependent on something to even host your software.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    I don't see where I made mention of any concept of freedom.
  - FeepingCreature 10y ago
    webrtc works fine. Rendezvous servers are a minimal cost, they're not involved beyond the setup, and you can run your own fairly easily. I'd argue it works better than sockets, especially for gaming, since there's no need to mess around with NAT.
    - the8472 10y ago
      It's about freedom to run your own software, it is not cost or "works fine". Webrtc has a dependency on and is controlled by a 3rd party. You can't talk to someone in the next room via webrtc without some party running the server and providing a service to you. If they decide to lock you out you can't use sockets anymore. With real sockets you can just send a multicast message to find all devices on the local network and talk to them directly.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        You can use any rendezvous server in the world. Even without free ones, you could buy access for $1 per decade. There is no third party in charge. There is just a requirement to use some party anywhere.
        the8472 10y ago
        Imagine you're in china. Do you really want the basic ability for two devices to talk to each other depend on something that goes over the internet? And they still have to agree on the same server, that provides a certain lock-in or inertia. Ultimately it means you have less control over your network connections than with real sockets. And for the purpose of discussion this about the freedom of running software on your computer and webcontent not being equivalent in that regard. With webrtc signalling servers you're just kicking the ball down the road because then you need to be able to run a server with access to real sockets on some other machine, just to use those poor imitations of sockets.
- goodplay 10y ago
  If people are willing to accept restrictions on what can be obtained or sold on the store (falsely in that name of "safety"), what makes you think they wont accept restrictions on what websites they are allowed to load, or more likely, what website owners are allowed to host?
  - throwanem 10y ago
    I don't know. Nuance?
cwyers 10y ago
I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to ban, oh, just for starters: * Photoshop * Illustrator * Premier * Avid * Office * Visual Studio etc. etc. Legacy applications are a huge reason for people to use Windows. Blocking themselves off from that rich ecosystem of applications is basically begging people to use a Chromebook.
- catdog 10y ago
  Easy, there will be special agreements for some of those bigger fish. And of course on the special versions of Windows enterprise customers get (which you can't buy individually that easy) this will still be allowed
  - izacus 10y ago
    Or you just side-step the issue by creating a "Tablet" or "Personal" version that's cheaper and never let arbitrary software run there. Just like Apple did - on iOS running arbitrary software isn't expected and they're slowly moving towards running it on more and more devices including TVs and "Pro" iPad hardware.
- Lev1a 10y ago
  I mean, just try to imagine them blocking Steam and the impending shitstorm afterwards...
vvanders 10y ago
Yeah, that'll happen when hell freezes over. The one thing Microsoft holds above all else is backwards compatibility and this would break that in a million ways.

Lev1a 10y ago

I can only imagine from their apparent course that they'll lock out Win32 apps at some point and only allow installation/execution of software from the Windows store (and maybe some "partners", i.e. some companies that are too big to just lock out, like Valve, although they would probably have to pay a "fee" to have access to the Win10 audience). Blocking of Win32 apps/apps not from the Windows Store already exists today [0], although who knows how long until it is not "voluntary" anymore. The text in the message from the linked article kind of gives one of the future "reasons" Microsoft will probably use in the future for this kind of shit away ("Limiting installations to apps from the Store helps to keep your PC safe and reliable"). This development presents a VERY slippery slope. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/windows-10-creators-update-can-block-win32-apps-if-theyre-not-from-the-store/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/windo...

vlan0 10y ago
It's questionable whether this is currently a slippery slope. There is no precedence for this move on the PC platform. That alone weakens the argument that Microsoft will eventually make that move. To be clear, it is still possible, but there is not enough evidence to build a case that guarantees your conclusion. Edit: You could argue that the ChromeOS platform is an example of a completed locked ecosystem. I've never really considered Chromebooks to be a PCs, but I'm sure under some context they meet the classifications of a PC.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Under what context would a Chromebook not be a PC?
  - vlan0 10y ago
    By the broad definition used to define a PC, a Chromebook is a PC. My perception of a PC is just skewed.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago