6 ms·

You can actually install Krita from the Windows Store, it's the same version

selfhoster11 6y ago
Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  Of course there is. $$$$
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    How does Microsoft make money from free apps being in the Windows Store?
    - laszlokorte 6y ago
      By conditioning users to only use the store and then later for paid apps as well.
      - vinceguidry 6y ago
        'Zactly. Every tech company has a strong interest in platform lock-in, not only do they collect a cut on whatever gets sold through the platform, but their data collection is better, so they can sell it to marketers.
- Complexicate 6y ago
  There absolutely is a reason. Microsoft's reason. Scaring users away from independent software distribution means more people will use the Windows Store.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    Or it means more people will stop using Windows.
    - Miraste 6y ago
      Unfortunately, Android, iOS, and MacOS are the alternatives non-technical people look at, and they're all much worse about installing software than Windows.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Code signing existed for a long time before the store arrived.
    - hashkb 6y ago
      I think it's about money, not security.
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      Of course! If they made independent software distribution impossible at the same time as introducing the store there would be an enormous backlash. The strategy is to introduce the store and slowly make independent distribution more and more onerous, using security as justification. When people complain you can say "just put your app in the store and you won't need to worry about signin/notarisation/etc." Apple are doing exactly the same thing.
    - gambler 6y ago
      Code signing the way it's implemented in Windows was always a garbage feature that made everyone less secure and more confused. Stop gaslighting on behalf of Microsoft. They clearly are manipulating users to get them to use Windows Store. The thing is shoved in your face whenever you use Windows 10.
      - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        >Stop gaslighting on behalf of Microsoft. It's not gaslighting to point out the error in @Complexicate's argument. If you want to convince people here then you need to get your facts straight rather than making childish statements.
- qayxc 6y ago
  > There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution. Can you please for the love of Zeus make up your mind already? "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! So which is it? And more importantly, how is this any way worse than the common practise in Linux to install 3rd party software via some variation of "wget -O https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install | sudo bash" that won't show any warning whatsoever? TL;DR There totally IS a reason to scare users away from installing random crap from the internet. And that reason is independent from operating systems or companies!
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Yes. > Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! Yes, but ONLY because they require you to create a Microsoft account. If you could use it without the account, then it would be fine. Edit: I also tend to trust package maintainers for established distro's more than I trust Microsoft's QA. This is just me though so only partially relevant. > So which is it? And more importantly, how is this any way worse than the common practise in Linux to install 3rd party software via some variation of "wget -O https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install | sudo bash" that won't show any warning whatsoever? (Windows Store) is worse than (random.exe)||(wget -O some.stupid.site/something.sh | sudo bash) is worse than (Proper package manager)
    - qayxc 6y ago
      > (Windows Store) is worse than (random.exe)||(wget -O some.stupid.site/something.sh | sudo bash) is worse than (Proper package manager) Why? Name a technical reason and not ideological BS, please. I've yet to hear a proper argument that isn't just "because Microsoft".
      - 6y ago
- thordenmark 6y ago
  Have you never had a relative (usually your mom) install malware because they didn't know any better? Most people are not so tech savvy as those of us who frequent Hacker News.
  - flohofwoe 6y ago
    There's nothing wrong about a malware scan on download (Chrome does this automatically too), but this scan should be smarter about detecting actual malware (it's called SmartScreen after all).
    - _flux 6y ago
      But it's basically an impossible problem to solve while not preventing running useful applications. You can only do that well until it becomes too difficult to do better.
      - eitland 6y ago
        Just because it is impossible to solve completely doesn't mean they should get off the hook for conveniently "forgetting" innocent open source packages.
      - gambler 6y ago
        >But it's basically an impossible problem to solve This is not just possible, but relatively easy to solve. Applications can be sandboxed by default. Signing the application or user granting it extra rights can remove some restrictions from the sandbox.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    But the message specifically says MS will only trust applications signed by a Digitcert certificate. The problem isn't that they're doing the check, it's that the check is poor. There's no reason it needs to prevent people from installing software that has been signed.

Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.

vinceguidry 6y ago
Of course there is. $$$$
- wtetzner 6y ago
  How does Microsoft make money from free apps being in the Windows Store?
  - laszlokorte 6y ago
    By conditioning users to only use the store and then later for paid apps as well.
    - vinceguidry 6y ago
      'Zactly. Every tech company has a strong interest in platform lock-in, not only do they collect a cut on whatever gets sold through the platform, but their data collection is better, so they can sell it to marketers.
Complexicate 6y ago
There absolutely is a reason. Microsoft's reason. Scaring users away from independent software distribution means more people will use the Windows Store.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  Or it means more people will stop using Windows.
  - Miraste 6y ago
    Unfortunately, Android, iOS, and MacOS are the alternatives non-technical people look at, and they're all much worse about installing software than Windows.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Code signing existed for a long time before the store arrived.
  - hashkb 6y ago
    I think it's about money, not security.
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    Of course! If they made independent software distribution impossible at the same time as introducing the store there would be an enormous backlash. The strategy is to introduce the store and slowly make independent distribution more and more onerous, using security as justification. When people complain you can say "just put your app in the store and you won't need to worry about signin/notarisation/etc." Apple are doing exactly the same thing.
  - gambler 6y ago
    Code signing the way it's implemented in Windows was always a garbage feature that made everyone less secure and more confused. Stop gaslighting on behalf of Microsoft. They clearly are manipulating users to get them to use Windows Store. The thing is shoved in your face whenever you use Windows 10.
    - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      >Stop gaslighting on behalf of Microsoft. It's not gaslighting to point out the error in @Complexicate's argument. If you want to convince people here then you need to get your facts straight rather than making childish statements.
qayxc 6y ago
> There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution. Can you please for the love of Zeus make up your mind already? "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! So which is it? And more importantly, how is this any way worse than the common practise in Linux to install 3rd party software via some variation of "wget -O https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install | sudo bash" that won't show any warning whatsoever? TL;DR There totally IS a reason to scare users away from installing random crap from the internet. And that reason is independent from operating systems or companies!
- Shared404 6y ago
  > "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Yes. > Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! Yes, but ONLY because they require you to create a Microsoft account. If you could use it without the account, then it would be fine. Edit: I also tend to trust package maintainers for established distro's more than I trust Microsoft's QA. This is just me though so only partially relevant. > So which is it? And more importantly, how is this any way worse than the common practise in Linux to install 3rd party software via some variation of "wget -O https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install | sudo bash" that won't show any warning whatsoever? (Windows Store) is worse than (random.exe)||(wget -O some.stupid.site/something.sh | sudo bash) is worse than (Proper package manager)
  - qayxc 6y ago
    > (Windows Store) is worse than (random.exe)||(wget -O some.stupid.site/something.sh | sudo bash) is worse than (Proper package manager) Why? Name a technical reason and not ideological BS, please. I've yet to hear a proper argument that isn't just "because Microsoft".
    - 6y ago
thordenmark 6y ago
Have you never had a relative (usually your mom) install malware because they didn't know any better? Most people are not so tech savvy as those of us who frequent Hacker News.
- flohofwoe 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong about a malware scan on download (Chrome does this automatically too), but this scan should be smarter about detecting actual malware (it's called SmartScreen after all).
  - _flux 6y ago
    But it's basically an impossible problem to solve while not preventing running useful applications. You can only do that well until it becomes too difficult to do better.
    - eitland 6y ago
      Just because it is impossible to solve completely doesn't mean they should get off the hook for conveniently "forgetting" innocent open source packages.
    - gambler 6y ago
      >But it's basically an impossible problem to solve This is not just possible, but relatively easy to solve. Applications can be sandboxed by default. Signing the application or user granting it extra rights can remove some restrictions from the sandbox.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  But the message specifically says MS will only trust applications signed by a Digitcert certificate. The problem isn't that they're doing the check, it's that the check is poor. There's no reason it needs to prevent people from installing software that has been signed.