10 ms·

Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary, unvetted software through the web is

Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary, unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it's only reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult and instead promote installing all software through their app stores (which they already start doing). Once software is primarily distributed via these stores they will also start asking for a cut of any revenue that is made through that software. The reason it's not like that already isn't that they're very nice, it's just that historically computers were open platforms and it will take longer to convert them to the walled gardens that smartphones have been from the very beginning of their existence.

echelon 5y ago
We need to legislate requiring web installs of software for all computer and smartphone operating systems. Any device owner should be allowed to run their own software on their computer. This bullshit has to stop.
- grishka 5y ago
  IMO it should be illegal for a company to make hardware, software, AND online services. Any two yes, but not all three. It should also be illegal to make any public keys and server hostnames unchangeable by the end user.
m4rtink 5y ago
The possibility of OS vendors forcing users to only install software from their walled gardens is the reason Valve started to support Linux, created their own Linux distro (Steam OS, now based on Arch Linux) and ultimately why Steam Deck was built. IIRC the main trigger was Windows 8 that back then had a strong push to only use Windows Store to install software. Valve could not conceivably continue doing business if OS vendors took a cut of all purchases via their walled garden store, not to mention having the OS vendor limit what games they can distribute and how.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Yeah-- I thought SteamOS was mostly dead, sitting on a shelf "just in case". I was wrong, and it now appears that Valve is sending the message "we're ready to do this thing at any time". Steam has something like 100 million+ active monthly users. Certainly some are casual and wouldn't make the switch, but that's a lot of home desktop market share to lose even if only half made the switch initially, and there'd be a halo effect on it too, along with a much more motivated & active community dedicated to cross platform compatibility. We'd probably see a lot of "linux first" applications (not just games) as well.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    That's why Microsoft won't do this. Steam users have a big investment in games on Steam, and are quite likely to switch to SteamOS, even if not every game works perfectly, rather than buying all those games again. And that would create a big Linux customer base that game studios and hardware makers would develop for, threatening Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
    - syshum 5y ago
      More likely if Microsoft did it, they would integrate Steam into the store, or allow Steam to be installed via the store They have already signaled their willingness to add 3rd party stores with their partnership with Amazon for Android Apps.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        That would still be problematic since Valve would be at the mercy of MS, hoping they didn't change their policies after a while the way other app stores have done. Steam could still roll out SteamOS then, but it would take time. Meanwhile games might start developing integrations (and DRM) in the combined MS/Steam platform in a way that made disentangling for Valve to go their own way much more difficult. Even if MS didn't demand a cut of the revenue, it would also probably mean Valve could no longer add whatever they wanted to Steam. If MS didn't impose some restrictions then Steam could completely allow circumvention of the MS store. Steam does sell some desktop products besides games, and presumably would want to keep that option open. I could be wrong, but tying themselves so closely to MS would impose too many potential problems down the road and limit their ability to change or expand business models, too much risk to put their fate almost completely in Microsoft's hands. Now, if MS purchased Valve, that might be different.
ineedasername 5y ago
I could see that on Windows Home Edition, but I don't know how they would make that work for Enterprise Edition. I don't see companies like SAS or Oracle and many others being willing to pay a Microsoft tax to distribute client software or desktop apps for their products. Or IBM for applications like SPSS. SaaS may end up eating a lot of that sort of thing, and web clients would help mitigate the requirements, but I think there would just be too many that weren't. If there was one thing that would push desktop linux into everyone's desktop in enterprise environments, it would be a move like this. And once that happens, similar to the initial home computing revolution, workers would bring it into their homes too. As another comment mentioned, they'd almost certainly lose the desktop market among PC gamers when Valve & others refused to go along, and Valve's linux distro would be a very popular alternative.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  If you had any idea of the amount of money companies are already spending on Microsoft licenses.. the cost of a signing certificate really is just a drop in the bucket. The only issue companies have with getting their apps signed is managing the certificates.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    The issue is the revenue cut MS wants for sales through their app store and companies losing near total control over the distribution of their software. Yes, getting their software into the MS store would be easy. Revenue and control aren't things they'd want to give up. Even if they simply raised their prices, at some point they'd say, "Hey, we can distribute this on Linux instead and keep the 5/10/30% cut MS is taking." (See Fortnite as an early example) Even if they gave up no revenue, what company would say "Sure!" to MS saying, "Would you mind giving us tons of control over your software distribution?" I don't see what the companies would have to gain on that.
proactivesvcs 5y ago
Microsoft are already inferring that arbitrary software is dangerous - SmartScreen's behaviour for unsigned code works against FOSS because a project (or person) has to pony up money to pay for a certificate.
- dylan604 5y ago
  maybe this is something that can be part of a give/take relationship. allow for FOSS to be part of the signing/notrization software as long as the FOSS is truly not-for-profit (no free software for install, but doesn't work without lots of in-app purchases, ads, etc). At least offer FOSS software devs a lower cost entry for dev accounts??
  - WhyNotHugo 5y ago
    FOSS doesn’t imply no-for-profit. You can use my code however you like, but I still need money to pay rent.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Right, so you gets to pay the dev fees to have your code signed. That's why I specifically stated not-for-profit could use "free" code signing. If you're making money off of the software, pay the fees required as part of the business.
      - WhyNotHugo 5y ago
        This “fee” is just a vendor abusing their position of power, If you pay me to write code, and you want to run it on your PC, there’s no reason we should be having to pay a third party to allow this.
  - badsectoracula 5y ago
    Even though most users aren't developers, the "Freedom" in Free Software is about user freedom not developer freedom (which is also a point that trips some developers who claim that licenses like MIT, zlib, etc are more free - they see it from the developer's side instead of the user's side). You shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run any software on your own devices and especially you shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run software you or your friend made modifications to.
intricatedetail 5y ago
It's ironic that Apple asks developers to pay 30% which is effectively 30% tax on developer revenue, while at the same time they dodge taxes like there is no tomorrow...
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary, unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it's only reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult and instead promote installing all software through their app stores Apple already does this on macOS. macOS treats all un-Notarized apps as if they're radioactive, and leads users to believe the un-Notarized apps they choose to run are either broken or malicious. If you want to run them, you need to know how to perform a magic ritual with the UI and adjust arcane settings. Every Mac based on the M1 chipset and above will not run unsigned binaries, either. With both Apple's Gatekeeper and Microsoft's Defender, developers must regularly buy certificates to sign their apps, and they must remain in good standing with each company if they want their apps to run without problems on macOS or Windows. Apple and Microsoft can revoke certificates whenever they want, for any reason they want, and macOS and Windows won't allow apps signed with the revoked certificates to run. Apple goes one step further and forces app developers to Notarize their apps, which involves uploading the app to Apple's servers so they can scan and approve of it. Un-Notarized apps are, again, treated as if they're radioactive. If you use the Mac App Store or the Microsoft Store, your operating system won't trick you into believing that the apps you downloaded with them are malicious or broken. It's no coincidence that the happy path for app distribution on either system is the same one that generates the most revenue for either company and hands them the most control.
- deanclatworthy 5y ago
  > Every Mac based on the M1 chipset and above will not run unsigned binaries, either. So this is different to Intel macs? You can’t just go to security and privacy and “allow”?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Yes, it's different. You can read more about it here[1]. There's no option to run unsigned binaries on M1 Macs on macOS. [1] http://www.rahulgaitonde.org/blog/2020/11/12/apple-m1-and-the-ultimate-closed-system-part-1/ http://www.rahulgaitonde.org/blog/2020/11/12/apple-m1-and-th...
  - 5y ago
MrStonedOne 5y ago
There is already a version of Windows 10 that works this way.
- andai 5y ago
  Well, have you remembered what it is called?
WhyNotHugo 5y ago
10 years sounds like a stretch. Windows recently started blocking torrenting software due to being “malware”. Coincidence that it’s the main distribution mechanism for Linux distribution’s installation media?
grishka 5y ago
Desktop OSes can't be fully locked down for the simple reason that people use them for programming and thus need to run unsigned arbitrary code.
- petschge 5y ago
  Now introducing Windows 12 Developer edition. Dark mode is enabled by default, Visual Studio comes preinstalled and it is $5000 a year. Cheap to a professional developer and keeps the masses from running their own code.
  - grishka 5y ago
    Coming to a torrent tracker near you for free an hour after release.
    - petschge 5y ago
      This is not to stop the people who can download from a torrent (without getting sued into oblivion for copyright violations) and know how to install an OS. It's to stop the other 99%. In some sense having an option for that 1% is a good idea, because it reduced their interest to break the "protections" in the Home edition that the majority uses.
      - grishka 5y ago
        Okay, let's see. All desktop web browsers come with developer tools, but most people have no idea. Many Android phones have unlockable bootloaders, and even fewer people know about this one. It's this difference between "can be done if you need and know how" and "burned into silicon so you're out of luck" that's very important. The latter is extremely dangerous as it completely strips the user of agency.
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  Well, they can just say that "Development" on desktops is dangerous for the user and allows malicious actors to create malware. As such, desktop OS will block running of any unsigned binary. For developing your Microsoft© Authorised Application®, please sign up to CodeSpaces™ subscription at just $99 per month!
dheera 5y ago
Can one just make an app that doesn't show those links if the viewer is coming from a Google corporate IP?
- account42 5y ago
  You can try, but if they find out then good luck ever releasing anything on a Google platform again.

echelon 5y ago

We need to legislate requiring web installs of software for all computer and smartphone operating systems. Any device owner should be allowed to run their own software on their computer. This bullshit has to stop.

grishka 5y ago
IMO it should be illegal for a company to make hardware, software, AND online services. Any two yes, but not all three. It should also be illegal to make any public keys and server hostnames unchangeable by the end user.

m4rtink 5y ago

The possibility of OS vendors forcing users to only install software from their walled gardens is the reason Valve started to support Linux, created their own Linux distro (Steam OS, now based on Arch Linux) and ultimately why Steam Deck was built. IIRC the main trigger was Windows 8 that back then had a strong push to only use Windows Store to install software. Valve could not conceivably continue doing business if OS vendors took a cut of all purchases via their walled garden store, not to mention having the OS vendor limit what games they can distribute and how.

ineedasername 5y ago
Yeah-- I thought SteamOS was mostly dead, sitting on a shelf "just in case". I was wrong, and it now appears that Valve is sending the message "we're ready to do this thing at any time". Steam has something like 100 million+ active monthly users. Certainly some are casual and wouldn't make the switch, but that's a lot of home desktop market share to lose even if only half made the switch initially, and there'd be a halo effect on it too, along with a much more motivated & active community dedicated to cross platform compatibility. We'd probably see a lot of "linux first" applications (not just games) as well.
- leereeves 5y ago
  That's why Microsoft won't do this. Steam users have a big investment in games on Steam, and are quite likely to switch to SteamOS, even if not every game works perfectly, rather than buying all those games again. And that would create a big Linux customer base that game studios and hardware makers would develop for, threatening Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
  - syshum 5y ago
    More likely if Microsoft did it, they would integrate Steam into the store, or allow Steam to be installed via the store They have already signaled their willingness to add 3rd party stores with their partnership with Amazon for Android Apps.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      That would still be problematic since Valve would be at the mercy of MS, hoping they didn't change their policies after a while the way other app stores have done. Steam could still roll out SteamOS then, but it would take time. Meanwhile games might start developing integrations (and DRM) in the combined MS/Steam platform in a way that made disentangling for Valve to go their own way much more difficult. Even if MS didn't demand a cut of the revenue, it would also probably mean Valve could no longer add whatever they wanted to Steam. If MS didn't impose some restrictions then Steam could completely allow circumvention of the MS store. Steam does sell some desktop products besides games, and presumably would want to keep that option open. I could be wrong, but tying themselves so closely to MS would impose too many potential problems down the road and limit their ability to change or expand business models, too much risk to put their fate almost completely in Microsoft's hands. Now, if MS purchased Valve, that might be different.

ineedasername 5y ago

I could see that on Windows Home Edition, but I don't know how they would make that work for Enterprise Edition. I don't see companies like SAS or Oracle and many others being willing to pay a Microsoft tax to distribute client software or desktop apps for their products. Or IBM for applications like SPSS. SaaS may end up eating a lot of that sort of thing, and web clients would help mitigate the requirements, but I think there would just be too many that weren't. If there was one thing that would push desktop linux into everyone's desktop in enterprise environments, it would be a move like this. And once that happens, similar to the initial home computing revolution, workers would bring it into their homes too. As another comment mentioned, they'd almost certainly lose the desktop market among PC gamers when Valve & others refused to go along, and Valve's linux distro would be a very popular alternative.

tinus_hn 5y ago
If you had any idea of the amount of money companies are already spending on Microsoft licenses.. the cost of a signing certificate really is just a drop in the bucket. The only issue companies have with getting their apps signed is managing the certificates.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  The issue is the revenue cut MS wants for sales through their app store and companies losing near total control over the distribution of their software. Yes, getting their software into the MS store would be easy. Revenue and control aren't things they'd want to give up. Even if they simply raised their prices, at some point they'd say, "Hey, we can distribute this on Linux instead and keep the 5/10/30% cut MS is taking." (See Fortnite as an early example) Even if they gave up no revenue, what company would say "Sure!" to MS saying, "Would you mind giving us tons of control over your software distribution?" I don't see what the companies would have to gain on that.

proactivesvcs 5y ago

Microsoft are already inferring that arbitrary software is dangerous - SmartScreen's behaviour for unsigned code works against FOSS because a project (or person) has to pony up money to pay for a certificate.

dylan604 5y ago
maybe this is something that can be part of a give/take relationship. allow for FOSS to be part of the signing/notrization software as long as the FOSS is truly not-for-profit (no free software for install, but doesn't work without lots of in-app purchases, ads, etc). At least offer FOSS software devs a lower cost entry for dev accounts??
- WhyNotHugo 5y ago
  FOSS doesn’t imply no-for-profit. You can use my code however you like, but I still need money to pay rent.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Right, so you gets to pay the dev fees to have your code signed. That's why I specifically stated not-for-profit could use "free" code signing. If you're making money off of the software, pay the fees required as part of the business.
    - WhyNotHugo 5y ago
      This “fee” is just a vendor abusing their position of power, If you pay me to write code, and you want to run it on your PC, there’s no reason we should be having to pay a third party to allow this.
- badsectoracula 5y ago
  Even though most users aren't developers, the "Freedom" in Free Software is about user freedom not developer freedom (which is also a point that trips some developers who claim that licenses like MIT, zlib, etc are more free - they see it from the developer's side instead of the user's side). You shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run any software on your own devices and especially you shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run software you or your friend made modifications to.

intricatedetail 5y ago

It's ironic that Apple asks developers to pay 30% which is effectively 30% tax on developer revenue, while at the same time they dodge taxes like there is no tomorrow...

heavyset_go 5y ago

> Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary, unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it's only reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult and instead promote installing all software through their app stores Apple already does this on macOS. macOS treats all un-Notarized apps as if they're radioactive, and leads users to believe the un-Notarized apps they choose to run are either broken or malicious. If you want to run them, you need to know how to perform a magic ritual with the UI and adjust arcane settings. Every Mac based on the M1 chipset and above will not run unsigned binaries, either. With both Apple's Gatekeeper and Microsoft's Defender, developers must regularly buy certificates to sign their apps, and they must remain in good standing with each company if they want their apps to run without problems on macOS or Windows. Apple and Microsoft can revoke certificates whenever they want, for any reason they want, and macOS and Windows won't allow apps signed with the revoked certificates to run. Apple goes one step further and forces app developers to Notarize their apps, which involves uploading the app to Apple's servers so they can scan and approve of it. Un-Notarized apps are, again, treated as if they're radioactive. If you use the Mac App Store or the Microsoft Store, your operating system won't trick you into believing that the apps you downloaded with them are malicious or broken. It's no coincidence that the happy path for app distribution on either system is the same one that generates the most revenue for either company and hands them the most control.

deanclatworthy 5y ago
> Every Mac based on the M1 chipset and above will not run unsigned binaries, either. So this is different to Intel macs? You can’t just go to security and privacy and “allow”?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Yes, it's different. You can read more about it here[1]. There's no option to run unsigned binaries on M1 Macs on macOS. [1] http://www.rahulgaitonde.org/blog/2020/11/12/apple-m1-and-the-ultimate-closed-system-part-1/ http://www.rahulgaitonde.org/blog/2020/11/12/apple-m1-and-th...
- 5y ago

MrStonedOne 5y ago

There is already a version of Windows 10 that works this way.

andai 5y ago
Well, have you remembered what it is called?

WhyNotHugo 5y ago

10 years sounds like a stretch. Windows recently started blocking torrenting software due to being “malware”. Coincidence that it’s the main distribution mechanism for Linux distribution’s installation media?

grishka 5y ago

Desktop OSes can't be fully locked down for the simple reason that people use them for programming and thus need to run unsigned arbitrary code.

petschge 5y ago
Now introducing Windows 12 Developer edition. Dark mode is enabled by default, Visual Studio comes preinstalled and it is $5000 a year. Cheap to a professional developer and keeps the masses from running their own code.
- grishka 5y ago
  Coming to a torrent tracker near you for free an hour after release.
  - petschge 5y ago
    This is not to stop the people who can download from a torrent (without getting sued into oblivion for copyright violations) and know how to install an OS. It's to stop the other 99%. In some sense having an option for that 1% is a good idea, because it reduced their interest to break the "protections" in the Home edition that the majority uses.
    - grishka 5y ago
      Okay, let's see. All desktop web browsers come with developer tools, but most people have no idea. Many Android phones have unlockable bootloaders, and even fewer people know about this one. It's this difference between "can be done if you need and know how" and "burned into silicon so you're out of luck" that's very important. The latter is extremely dangerous as it completely strips the user of agency.
e3bc54b2 5y ago
Well, they can just say that "Development" on desktops is dangerous for the user and allows malicious actors to create malware. As such, desktop OS will block running of any unsigned binary. For developing your Microsoft© Authorised Application®, please sign up to CodeSpaces™ subscription at just $99 per month!

dheera 5y ago

Can one just make an app that doesn't show those links if the viewer is coming from a Google corporate IP?

account42 5y ago
You can try, but if they find out then good luck ever releasing anything on a Google platform again.