4 ms·
That's what it explained yes, but that doesn't cover the protocol handler on the shell side at all. Either it's a protocol with a protocol handler or it isn't.
by oneplane 5y ago
That's what it explained yes, but that doesn't cover the protocol handler on the shell side at all. Either it's a protocol with a protocol handler or it isn't.
- pseudalopex 5y agoYour meaning is entirely unclear. It was a protocol users could configure like the rest. Now they can't.
- oneplane 5y agoYes, that is the functional description, and I was writing about the technical implementation. User overrides work on protocols, but if it's not a user override anymore it makes sense that it wouldn't apply the settings since there is nothing to apply to. Just because it "looks" the same doesn't mean it is the same. There is a vague reference about a few KiB of added compiled code and the fact that it's an insider build, but other than that just an exploration of previously valid avenues that no longer apply, and the bundled outrage of assumptions based on a whole lot of nothing. I don't know what the actual implementation is, the article on the website doesn't seem to know, and neither do you. So all we can do is speculate, and it appears some people choose unproductive outrage over technical exploration.
- pseudalopex 5y agoThe details you dismissed established it wasn't accidentally hard coded. And Microsoft admitted it was intentional.[1] [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-doubles-down-on-its-strategy-to-get-more-windows-11-users-on-edge/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-doubles-down-on-its-...