6 ms·

Windows On ARM Users Need Browser Choice Too

184 points by Braasch 14y ago

greentrack 14y ago
This frankly isn't any different than my iPhone where no other browser can become the default!
- ntkachov 14y ago
  The real question is: do users benifit from this in any way?
  - greentrack 14y ago
    Ofcourse this isn't good for the users, windows or ios, but it always seems to be a bigger deal when microsoft does it.
    - josteink 14y ago
      On HN I'd rewrite the last part of the statement "but it's only a big deal if Microsoft does it". Around here, Apple can be as abusive and monopolistic as it likes, and nobody will raise their eyes from their MBPs at all.
    - eli 14y ago
      How long have you been on HN? I assure you that a colossal amount of virtual ink has been spent complaining about Apple's closed OS, their opaque app store policies, etc. Stories about iOS apps getting rejected dominated the front page for many weeks. I'd say the community here is far more understanding of Microsoft than, say, the Slashdot crowd.
- apendleton 14y ago
  Opera Mini is available for iOS devices in the app store: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-browser/id363729560?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-browser/id3637...
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Opera Mobile (Opera's much more comprehensive browser) isn't and for the same reason Firefox and Chrome aren't: Apple iOS ban on third-party interpreters of downloadable code (in the case of a browser, JavaScript). On iOS, the third-party browsers that are available are crippled (no client-side JavaScript unless you use Apple's implementation). And even those crippled browsers, like Opera Mini, can't be set as the default browser (e.g. for when you click on a link in an email).
  - greentrack 14y ago
    You can't make it the default app for links which is ultimately what firefox will be fighting for.
  - untog 14y ago
    It still uses the Safari rendering engine, because Apple mandates it.
    - vetler 14y ago
      No, Opera Mini doesn't use Safari. The reason for this is that with Opera Mini, the rendering engine isn't on the browser - it's on the server. This is what enables Opera to ship Mini as a tiny client, on a wide range of different devices. There's a bit more info about this here: http://www.opera.com/mobile/specs/ http://www.opera.com/mobile/specs/ In particular, "The rendering engine is on Opera’s server."
- tylermenezes 14y ago
  Not really, no, but it's a lot more absurd given how well that's gone for Microsoft in the past.
  - greentrack 14y ago
    That only really made sense when microsoft was in a monopoly position.
fleitz 14y ago
To be fair, there is one element missing from history, 90% market share in tablets. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position on tablets which is essentially what Windows on ARM means. It's interesting to note that on iOS there's no way to really replace Safari. Any links still open in Safari, no matter what else you've installed. Of course Apple does have a monopoly position on tablets. I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be browser choice, just that danger is more Apple than Microsoft at this point. If Microsoft changed their policy today it would benefit almost no one, but if Apple changed their policy today it would benefit millions.
- diminish 14y ago
  Long time firefox user,and critic of Microsoft practices I agree with fleitz. Apple's extremely closed ecosystem unfortunately worked against openness and choice in all aspects. Now that Apple is ruling the tablets, and most of the profits of smartphones, they must be targeted by Mozilla too to allow them to use the Firefox renderer.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    What Power has Firefox over Apple, though ? Once the public has no issue with using locked-up devices, there is not much you can do to leverage the benefits of openness.
    - diminish 14y ago
      I agree, ff doesn't have much power, but we users have the power to help, and it was shown again and again how users may affect policies even government policies.
- revorad 14y ago
  It hurts and annoys me to no end that web developers don't take a stronger stand against Apple for its ridiculous policies against allowing browsers. To me, the browser is the single most important piece of software on any computer. People love to talk about how iOS native apps totally win over web apps. But do they stop to think why that is the case? Because, the one native app - a better browser - that could change the situation is not allowed on iOS. Firefox and Chrome pushed the boundaries a lot when they first appeared on the desktop scene. But now they've become too caught up in standards compliance to actually do radically innovative things (except B2G, I'll admit). I'm betting on a new kickass browser on Android to either force Apple and Microsoft to open up, or make them irrelevant.
gringomorcego 14y ago
This is unforgivable: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/windows-8s-locked-bootloaders-much-ado-about-nothing-or-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/window... Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader. The concessions you might have read about are for secure boot on other systems. They also have been threatening Linux distributors with patent infringement lawsuits. Every ARM phone has a windows license paid for it, it's just not installed. This is truly the sign of desperation and insanity. Once you get scared of the competition that much, you might as well show yourself to the door. I want to make myself clear: Microsoft has done great things. But now; well now they are finally having to bleed. And we, the customers and competition, are going to see just how fearsome a desperate, dying cornered animal it truly is. That patent library and legal team aren't going to go unused...
- ComputerGuru 14y ago
  Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader. The concessions you might have read about are for secure boot on other systems. I haven't been able to test it myself yet, but some of my users tell me that EasyBCD is able to work around this issue.
  - gringomorcego 14y ago
    Can you point me to where it works with an ARM Windows 8 device? I don't doubt it, I just don't see it anywhere in the documentation.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  >Every ARM phone has a windows license paid for it, it's just not installed. iPhone is an ARM phone. >Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader All iOS ARM machines have a locked bootloader. All 200M+ of them. But somehow the sky falls only when MS does it, even when they haven't sold one single ARM tablet.
  - gringomorcego 14y ago
LocalPCGuy 14y ago
Don't know why Mozilla isn't making a bigger deal about the iPhone/iPad browsers. Apple pretty clearly still holds a monopoly position, at the least a majority position, but their platform is locked down. But it's ok for Apple, but bad for Microsoft? I have a bad feeling about Mozilla's prospects going forward. If the mobile platform "single" browser model is allowed to continue, they don't really have a place in that world.
- starwed 14y ago
  Of course Mozilla doesn't like how Apple behaves on iOS devices! Do you honestly think they do, or were you just trying to be provocative?
  - freehunter 14y ago
    The point is, why raise a big stink about it when Microsoft does it (which at this point, affects no one), when Apple has been doing the same thing for the past 7 years, which affects millions?
    - kalleboo 14y ago
      Because with Microsoft they actually have a chance of changing things. Apple are a completely lost cause when it comes to freedom.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  Because if they do, no one will care except a few FOSS fans and it would get flagged to death on HN. But it's open season on MS, that's why we have three different stories on the front page reporting the exact same story, so they know how to get people riled up.
  - yuhong 14y ago
    Not to mention that iOS is not as similar to Mac OS X as Windows RT is to Windows x86.
randomfool 14y ago
With Microsoft's newfound love for HTML, this adds significant pressure to keep IE decent and updated regularly. IE10 is OK today but will be outdated in a year. Will IE11 ship within 12 months (from now, not Win8 RTM). Otherwise MS has an OS emphasizing HTML, with a limping browser. The ARM excuse is bogus.
Deregibus 14y ago
The key argument here is the same as Microsoft's previous issues with undocumented APIs. I think it's fairly clear that Microsoft wants Windows RT to be an iOS and Android competitor, not "Windows 8 on ARM". If you subtract the Classic mode from Windows RT it's in the same OS category as iOS, they just took a different approach to get there by basing it on their desktop OS. The problem is that Microsoft has turned pretty much the entire Windows API into an undocumented API (AFAIK, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the technical details here) and completely locked it down so that they're the only ones that can use it. It's not necessarily simple to move a large program like IE or Office over to a new architecture, but it's going to be an order of magnitude easier to do so when you don't have to rewrite it to an entirely new API (in this case Metro) while you're at it. Yes, Firefox can still put out a Metro version, but I would imagine that it would be a significantly greater undertaking than if they had the ability to write to Classic. The unfortunate thing here is that this isn't necessarily an underhanded plot by Microsoft. There are definitely some benefits to the more sandboxed-style apps pushed by iOS and Android vs. what you can do with a desktop OS, especially when it comes to non-powerusers that just want stuff to work. From that point of view the Classic mode in Windows RT really shouldn't even be there at all, but if you want something like Office on ARM anytime soon then it's probably the only option. The trouble is that Microsoft wants to provide the additional benefits of a few key Classic applications while also trying to avoid having the OS turn into a bunch of poorly-ported desktop applications and I'm not sure they can have it both ways.
- yuhong 14y ago
  Reminds of how AnyCPU EXEs in the .NET Framework are loaded by the Windows loader.
jacktoole1 14y ago
I'm not sure why Microsoft wants to exclude other browsers from Windows RT. Since many people hate IE, wouldn't having more browser choice be a benefit? Mozilla or Google could probably offer a better browser on Windows RT than Microsoft. Does Micrsoft make much money off IE? Wouldn't it be a better value to focus on their comparative advantage creating operating systems to help others make the web browsers? In the inevitable comparison to Apple: the iPad's browser resembles Safari, which a minority of computer users use, and has poor support for HTML5. If Mozilla could make Firefox for Windows RT, which would be the same browser many people are used to, and could potentially have better HTML5 performance on a tablet, would that not be an important advantage over Apple, at least for adoption among technical users?
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  Because letting in FireFox means letting in Chrome which means letting in Google to entirely subvert their beautiful new OS and turn it into ChromeOS. MS needs to be in a position - just like Apple - to ensure that browser based apps remain at least just slightly worse than native ones so they keep a chokehold on the tollgates to the river of digital money that will come flowing through their app store.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    To be fair, Apple originally wanted web apps to be the only form of third-party software. There was a huge fuss, and that brought us the App Store.
gouranga 14y ago
There is actually nothing preventing anyone from writing a browser for windows on arm. The issue is that the API makes it inconvenient for existing browsers to be ported. I've written a proof of concept HTML to WPF parser/renderer that worked fine inside WinRT. It wadls written in c# which is where the issue is I think...
- joenathan 14y ago
  Alternative browsers are allowed in the Metro interface, but not on the desktop in RT, that's what this article is about. Mozilla needs to be able to run binary code, and Microsoft has blocked all third party code from the desktop in RT.
- josteink 14y ago
  ...WinRT. It wadls written in c# which is where the issue is I think... You can write WinRT in C++ as well. This was shown again and again on the Build Windows launch conference. Edit: I don't know how restricted the WinRT APIs are though and how being restricted to those (as opposed to the traditional Win32 APIs) affects what you can implement and not. Edit2: This post seems to answer it. Browsers will have issues. http://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/FYI-No-JIT-on-Windows-8-for-ARM http://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/FYI-No-JIT-on-Windows-8...
  - jamesgeck0 14y ago
    Why is the ability to make code executable at runtime unavailable? JRuby can run in the browser, and NativeClient runs applications that use JIT[1], so I assume the ability isn't inherently at odds with sandboxing. 1. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/native-client-discuss/karmYg8XACI https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/native-cl...
gouranga 14y ago
There is actually nothing preventing anyone from writing a browser for windows on arm. The issue is that the API makes it inconvenient for existing browsers to be ported.
fierarul 14y ago
Mozilla should make more fuss about this because it's important. I see my family happily using Linux on their laptops because 80% of what they need is a browser. And Google with ChromeOS also thinks that a browser should, in time, be enough. So, the fact that we have ecosystems being developed where there is only one blessed browser (be it Safari or IE) is a severe roadblock. The browser isn't like another app, it's more like another kind of AppStore. If we accept the current situation, they will find a way to monetize that too and there will be no escape.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Is having one "blessed" implementation of the web stack on a platform such a bad thing? Ultimately I think the notion of the "browser" and "operating system" as we know them today will disappear, and we'll be left with OSes that boot straight into a rendering engine. There will be no such thing as a "native app".
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    I'd say yes it is a bad thing. Why is Web so hot? Because it works on all platforms and is always up to speed. If my browser doesn't render a site properly I can fire up another web browser and try again. Imagine what would happen if each browser was locked into the computer. There would be browser war and someone would win. That means more people will use that browser/computer which will make developer hesitant to support other browsers. Circulus vitiosus and you'd have the same issue like with IE from ten years ago. Without competition dominant browser would stagnate and we'll be up to our necks in molasses. Operating system as they are won't be going away soon anytime unless the issue network lag, security and availability aren't solved. Otherwise we'll just return again to the desktop paradigm.
angersock 14y ago
You know, every so often, a Stallman item or quote or something shows up on HN and there is much wailing and laughing and mocking and gnashing of teeth. Folks feel ashamed of his words, are outraged at his lack of tact and manners, and constantly and publicly denounce him as an anachronism, an inconvenient throwback to the bad old days of the free software movement. We drink beers, sip coffee, hack web apps, compare term sheets, and chuckle at this old goofball. And then shit like this happens. And you know what? Maybe he's right to be that crazy, and maybe we're wrong to be so dismissive and consider him so alarmist, and maybe everyone should take a good, hard look at what we value in tech and what we can do to protect it.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  Just because some of Stallman's predictions have become true, doesn't mean every stupid BS he says is true. As civilized people we should discuss and decide what is true and what is BS, which is what many do on HN.
  - _seininn 14y ago
    "discuss and decide what is true and what is BS"?!! Do you honestly think that truth needs to be discussed and decided? The man - as much as I dislike him and his behavior - got it right. and it isn't the first time too. Sure some of his statements might seem too outlandish at first, but many of them happen. Anyone remember this http://gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ? I simply cant fathom the reasoning of people who are quick to ridicule any idea that does not fit in their image of how the world works.
    - eli 14y ago
      Stallman's opinions for how the world should work and his predictions for what will happen in the future are not "truth." I think it's totally fair to look at something he's said or written in the context of a guy who has been right in the past. But that doesn't mean everything he says is beyond reproach.
kogir 14y ago
Given that right now there are already two more popular (extant) choices, iPad and Android Tablets, I fail to see how this is an issue. Back in the day when Microsoft got in trouble you couldn't really argue it was feasible to get a PC without Windows.
rsanchez1 14y ago
When you don't have an OS choice (in order for a tablet to be approved for Windows 8 ARM), browser choice is the least of your worries.

184 points by Braasch 14y ago

greentrack 14y ago

This frankly isn't any different than my iPhone where no other browser can become the default!

ntkachov 14y ago
The real question is: do users benifit from this in any way?
- greentrack 14y ago
  Ofcourse this isn't good for the users, windows or ios, but it always seems to be a bigger deal when microsoft does it.
  - josteink 14y ago
    On HN I'd rewrite the last part of the statement "but it's only a big deal if Microsoft does it". Around here, Apple can be as abusive and monopolistic as it likes, and nobody will raise their eyes from their MBPs at all.
  - eli 14y ago
    How long have you been on HN? I assure you that a colossal amount of virtual ink has been spent complaining about Apple's closed OS, their opaque app store policies, etc. Stories about iOS apps getting rejected dominated the front page for many weeks. I'd say the community here is far more understanding of Microsoft than, say, the Slashdot crowd.
apendleton 14y ago
Opera Mini is available for iOS devices in the app store: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-browser/id363729560?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-browser/id3637...
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Opera Mobile (Opera's much more comprehensive browser) isn't and for the same reason Firefox and Chrome aren't: Apple iOS ban on third-party interpreters of downloadable code (in the case of a browser, JavaScript). On iOS, the third-party browsers that are available are crippled (no client-side JavaScript unless you use Apple's implementation). And even those crippled browsers, like Opera Mini, can't be set as the default browser (e.g. for when you click on a link in an email).
- greentrack 14y ago
  You can't make it the default app for links which is ultimately what firefox will be fighting for.
- untog 14y ago
  It still uses the Safari rendering engine, because Apple mandates it.
  - vetler 14y ago
    No, Opera Mini doesn't use Safari. The reason for this is that with Opera Mini, the rendering engine isn't on the browser - it's on the server. This is what enables Opera to ship Mini as a tiny client, on a wide range of different devices. There's a bit more info about this here: http://www.opera.com/mobile/specs/ http://www.opera.com/mobile/specs/ In particular, "The rendering engine is on Opera’s server."
tylermenezes 14y ago
Not really, no, but it's a lot more absurd given how well that's gone for Microsoft in the past.
- greentrack 14y ago
  That only really made sense when microsoft was in a monopoly position.

fleitz 14y ago

To be fair, there is one element missing from history, 90% market share in tablets. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position on tablets which is essentially what Windows on ARM means. It's interesting to note that on iOS there's no way to really replace Safari. Any links still open in Safari, no matter what else you've installed. Of course Apple does have a monopoly position on tablets. I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be browser choice, just that danger is more Apple than Microsoft at this point. If Microsoft changed their policy today it would benefit almost no one, but if Apple changed their policy today it would benefit millions.

diminish 14y ago
Long time firefox user,and critic of Microsoft practices I agree with fleitz. Apple's extremely closed ecosystem unfortunately worked against openness and choice in all aspects. Now that Apple is ruling the tablets, and most of the profits of smartphones, they must be targeted by Mozilla too to allow them to use the Firefox renderer.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  What Power has Firefox over Apple, though ? Once the public has no issue with using locked-up devices, there is not much you can do to leverage the benefits of openness.
  - diminish 14y ago
    I agree, ff doesn't have much power, but we users have the power to help, and it was shown again and again how users may affect policies even government policies.
revorad 14y ago
It hurts and annoys me to no end that web developers don't take a stronger stand against Apple for its ridiculous policies against allowing browsers. To me, the browser is the single most important piece of software on any computer. People love to talk about how iOS native apps totally win over web apps. But do they stop to think why that is the case? Because, the one native app - a better browser - that could change the situation is not allowed on iOS. Firefox and Chrome pushed the boundaries a lot when they first appeared on the desktop scene. But now they've become too caught up in standards compliance to actually do radically innovative things (except B2G, I'll admit). I'm betting on a new kickass browser on Android to either force Apple and Microsoft to open up, or make them irrelevant.

gringomorcego 14y ago

This is unforgivable: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/windows-8s-locked-bootloaders-much-ado-about-nothing-or-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/window... Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader. The concessions you might have read about are for secure boot on other systems. They also have been threatening Linux distributors with patent infringement lawsuits. Every ARM phone has a windows license paid for it, it's just not installed. This is truly the sign of desperation and insanity. Once you get scared of the competition that much, you might as well show yourself to the door. I want to make myself clear: Microsoft has done great things. But now; well now they are finally having to bleed. And we, the customers and competition, are going to see just how fearsome a desperate, dying cornered animal it truly is. That patent library and legal team aren't going to go unused...

ComputerGuru 14y ago
Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader. The concessions you might have read about are for secure boot on other systems. I haven't been able to test it myself yet, but some of my users tell me that EasyBCD is able to work around this issue.
- gringomorcego 14y ago
  Can you point me to where it works with an ARM Windows 8 device? I don't doubt it, I just don't see it anywhere in the documentation.
cooldeal 14y ago
>Every ARM phone has a windows license paid for it, it's just not installed. iPhone is an ARM phone. >Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader All iOS ARM machines have a locked bootloader. All 200M+ of them. But somehow the sky falls only when MS does it, even when they haven't sold one single ARM tablet.
- gringomorcego 14y ago

LocalPCGuy 14y ago

Don't know why Mozilla isn't making a bigger deal about the iPhone/iPad browsers. Apple pretty clearly still holds a monopoly position, at the least a majority position, but their platform is locked down. But it's ok for Apple, but bad for Microsoft? I have a bad feeling about Mozilla's prospects going forward. If the mobile platform "single" browser model is allowed to continue, they don't really have a place in that world.

starwed 14y ago
Of course Mozilla doesn't like how Apple behaves on iOS devices! Do you honestly think they do, or were you just trying to be provocative?
- freehunter 14y ago
  The point is, why raise a big stink about it when Microsoft does it (which at this point, affects no one), when Apple has been doing the same thing for the past 7 years, which affects millions?
  - kalleboo 14y ago
    Because with Microsoft they actually have a chance of changing things. Apple are a completely lost cause when it comes to freedom.
cooldeal 14y ago
Because if they do, no one will care except a few FOSS fans and it would get flagged to death on HN. But it's open season on MS, that's why we have three different stories on the front page reporting the exact same story, so they know how to get people riled up.
- yuhong 14y ago
  Not to mention that iOS is not as similar to Mac OS X as Windows RT is to Windows x86.

randomfool 14y ago

With Microsoft's newfound love for HTML, this adds significant pressure to keep IE decent and updated regularly. IE10 is OK today but will be outdated in a year. Will IE11 ship within 12 months (from now, not Win8 RTM). Otherwise MS has an OS emphasizing HTML, with a limping browser. The ARM excuse is bogus.

Deregibus 14y ago

The key argument here is the same as Microsoft's previous issues with undocumented APIs. I think it's fairly clear that Microsoft wants Windows RT to be an iOS and Android competitor, not "Windows 8 on ARM". If you subtract the Classic mode from Windows RT it's in the same OS category as iOS, they just took a different approach to get there by basing it on their desktop OS. The problem is that Microsoft has turned pretty much the entire Windows API into an undocumented API (AFAIK, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the technical details here) and completely locked it down so that they're the only ones that can use it. It's not necessarily simple to move a large program like IE or Office over to a new architecture, but it's going to be an order of magnitude easier to do so when you don't have to rewrite it to an entirely new API (in this case Metro) while you're at it. Yes, Firefox can still put out a Metro version, but I would imagine that it would be a significantly greater undertaking than if they had the ability to write to Classic. The unfortunate thing here is that this isn't necessarily an underhanded plot by Microsoft. There are definitely some benefits to the more sandboxed-style apps pushed by iOS and Android vs. what you can do with a desktop OS, especially when it comes to non-powerusers that just want stuff to work. From that point of view the Classic mode in Windows RT really shouldn't even be there at all, but if you want something like Office on ARM anytime soon then it's probably the only option. The trouble is that Microsoft wants to provide the additional benefits of a few key Classic applications while also trying to avoid having the OS turn into a bunch of poorly-ported desktop applications and I'm not sure they can have it both ways.

yuhong 14y ago
Reminds of how AnyCPU EXEs in the .NET Framework are loaded by the Windows loader.

jacktoole1 14y ago

I'm not sure why Microsoft wants to exclude other browsers from Windows RT. Since many people hate IE, wouldn't having more browser choice be a benefit? Mozilla or Google could probably offer a better browser on Windows RT than Microsoft. Does Micrsoft make much money off IE? Wouldn't it be a better value to focus on their comparative advantage creating operating systems to help others make the web browsers? In the inevitable comparison to Apple: the iPad's browser resembles Safari, which a minority of computer users use, and has poor support for HTML5. If Mozilla could make Firefox for Windows RT, which would be the same browser many people are used to, and could potentially have better HTML5 performance on a tablet, would that not be an important advantage over Apple, at least for adoption among technical users?

zmmmmm 14y ago
Because letting in FireFox means letting in Chrome which means letting in Google to entirely subvert their beautiful new OS and turn it into ChromeOS. MS needs to be in a position - just like Apple - to ensure that browser based apps remain at least just slightly worse than native ones so they keep a chokehold on the tollgates to the river of digital money that will come flowing through their app store.
- freehunter 14y ago
  To be fair, Apple originally wanted web apps to be the only form of third-party software. There was a huge fuss, and that brought us the App Store.

gouranga 14y ago

There is actually nothing preventing anyone from writing a browser for windows on arm. The issue is that the API makes it inconvenient for existing browsers to be ported. I've written a proof of concept HTML to WPF parser/renderer that worked fine inside WinRT. It wadls written in c# which is where the issue is I think...

joenathan 14y ago
Alternative browsers are allowed in the Metro interface, but not on the desktop in RT, that's what this article is about. Mozilla needs to be able to run binary code, and Microsoft has blocked all third party code from the desktop in RT.
josteink 14y ago
...WinRT. It wadls written in c# which is where the issue is I think... You can write WinRT in C++ as well. This was shown again and again on the Build Windows launch conference. Edit: I don't know how restricted the WinRT APIs are though and how being restricted to those (as opposed to the traditional Win32 APIs) affects what you can implement and not. Edit2: This post seems to answer it. Browsers will have issues. http://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/FYI-No-JIT-on-Windows-8-for-ARM http://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/FYI-No-JIT-on-Windows-8...
- jamesgeck0 14y ago
  Why is the ability to make code executable at runtime unavailable? JRuby can run in the browser, and NativeClient runs applications that use JIT[1], so I assume the ability isn't inherently at odds with sandboxing. 1. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/native-client-discuss/karmYg8XACI https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/native-cl...

gouranga 14y ago

There is actually nothing preventing anyone from writing a browser for windows on arm. The issue is that the API makes it inconvenient for existing browsers to be ported.

fierarul 14y ago

Mozilla should make more fuss about this because it's important. I see my family happily using Linux on their laptops because 80% of what they need is a browser. And Google with ChromeOS also thinks that a browser should, in time, be enough. So, the fact that we have ecosystems being developed where there is only one blessed browser (be it Safari or IE) is a severe roadblock. The browser isn't like another app, it's more like another kind of AppStore. If we accept the current situation, they will find a way to monetize that too and there will be no escape.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Is having one "blessed" implementation of the web stack on a platform such a bad thing? Ultimately I think the notion of the "browser" and "operating system" as we know them today will disappear, and we'll be left with OSes that boot straight into a rendering engine. There will be no such thing as a "native app".
- Ygg2 14y ago
  I'd say yes it is a bad thing. Why is Web so hot? Because it works on all platforms and is always up to speed. If my browser doesn't render a site properly I can fire up another web browser and try again. Imagine what would happen if each browser was locked into the computer. There would be browser war and someone would win. That means more people will use that browser/computer which will make developer hesitant to support other browsers. Circulus vitiosus and you'd have the same issue like with IE from ten years ago. Without competition dominant browser would stagnate and we'll be up to our necks in molasses. Operating system as they are won't be going away soon anytime unless the issue network lag, security and availability aren't solved. Otherwise we'll just return again to the desktop paradigm.

angersock 14y ago

You know, every so often, a Stallman item or quote or something shows up on HN and there is much wailing and laughing and mocking and gnashing of teeth. Folks feel ashamed of his words, are outraged at his lack of tact and manners, and constantly and publicly denounce him as an anachronism, an inconvenient throwback to the bad old days of the free software movement. We drink beers, sip coffee, hack web apps, compare term sheets, and chuckle at this old goofball. And then shit like this happens. And you know what? Maybe he's right to be that crazy, and maybe we're wrong to be so dismissive and consider him so alarmist, and maybe everyone should take a good, hard look at what we value in tech and what we can do to protect it.

pooriaazimi 14y ago
Just because some of Stallman's predictions have become true, doesn't mean every stupid BS he says is true. As civilized people we should discuss and decide what is true and what is BS, which is what many do on HN.
- _seininn 14y ago
  "discuss and decide what is true and what is BS"?!! Do you honestly think that truth needs to be discussed and decided? The man - as much as I dislike him and his behavior - got it right. and it isn't the first time too. Sure some of his statements might seem too outlandish at first, but many of them happen. Anyone remember this http://gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ? I simply cant fathom the reasoning of people who are quick to ridicule any idea that does not fit in their image of how the world works.
  - eli 14y ago
    Stallman's opinions for how the world should work and his predictions for what will happen in the future are not "truth." I think it's totally fair to look at something he's said or written in the context of a guy who has been right in the past. But that doesn't mean everything he says is beyond reproach.

kogir 14y ago

Given that right now there are already two more popular (extant) choices, iPad and Android Tablets, I fail to see how this is an issue. Back in the day when Microsoft got in trouble you couldn't really argue it was feasible to get a PC without Windows.

rsanchez1 14y ago

When you don't have an OS choice (in order for a tablet to be approved for Windows 8 ARM), browser choice is the least of your worries.