Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

blogs.windows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#71

Post by flukus »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #62
userbinator wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I hope once the global filesystem concept will be gone, and apps will use isolated or shared storages where shared storage will get explicit access rights for each app/user it is shared with I very much hope not, since default and easy global sharing is what makes desktop OSs so very useful, and a lot of this sharing is spontaneous, creative, and ad-hoc. Besides, we already have things like filesystem perm…

Filesystem permissions cannot be controlled on a per app level. I do not like the fact, that an installation of for example a game needs admin rights, and has every chance to access data it should not be able to do. I see your point, that the current solution offers a simple (and vulnurable solution). This is why I have said that these challenges need to be addressed. The current solutions may not be the best, but fo…

> Filesystem permissions cannot be controlled on a per app level

They can if you adopt a user per app model. I thought this is what android/UWP did under the hood.

> I do not like the fact, that an installation of for example a game needs admin rights, and has every chance to access data it should not be able to do.

I doesn't. The biggest cause of this is the default of requiring admin to access program files, even if it's only touching it's own new folder.

Installing off steam happens without admin rights, apart from the VC++ redistributable (why is that a thing?).

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#72

Post by syshum »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #50
syshum wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What more do you want? Them to open source and GPL all their software.

MIT isn't good enough? Because they did use MIT. I want Stallman to give more care to the defense industrial base that produces computers than to making sure that the same defense industrial base has a free f*cking compiler to use on the computers it makes.

>MIT isn't good enough? Because they did use MIT.

Windows is MIT licensed now?

System Center is MIT Licensed?

Visual Studio is MIT Licensed? (not core, core is not Visual Studio, it Github's Atom editor with a MS skin)

I believe I said ALL software not just some side projects

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#73

Post by flukus »

raesene6 wrote: post #68
flukus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really disagree with UWP being a better model than limited UAC. Apps being able to talk to each other and the filesystem and interacting is what makes them useful. The linux/sudo approach is the best comrpomise between security and utility I'm yet to come across. > The old system had defaults originating from the single user non-multimedia usecases left over as a legacy, but currently we have so many things going o…

Generally the way I've seen sudo implemented in all desktop linuxes is that after providing a password the process gets all access. This to me isn't a great trade off as it relies on the user invoking the process understanding the security risks they're taking, which is a tricky one. Sure you can do more with sudo, but unless it's the default, most people won't

There's room for improvemnt, it's just the best trade off I've seen. Windows has it's "click yes to continue" buttons, android has it's permissions thing that is useless to everyone. At least making people pause and type a password might make them think about what they're doing a bit.

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#74

Post by garganzol »

ctolkien wrote: post #66
garganzol wrote: post #47

Are those UWP packaged apps could be downloaded and installed from a website in a few mouse clicks? If not then thank you, I would not bother to participate in a walled garden.

Yes, the store is just one distribution model. The web, or whatever is also fine.

That's interesting.

Is there any practical step-by-step guide on how to achieve this? Or at least any sample website that offers installable downloads in APPX/UWP format?

The last time I tried it wasn't possible at all without some PowerShell black voodoo scripts with some temporary certificates and other royal pain points rendering the whole technology totally useless. I could not even run my own appx apps because they should only be run "in container context".

UPDATE: Just tried to create a blank app, packaged it into .APPX and run it on my machine by double-clicking the resulting APPX file. Here is what I've got:

"Either you need a new certificate installed for this app package, or you need a new app package with trusted certificates. Your system administrator or the app developer can help. A certificate chain processed, but terminated in a root certificate which isn't trusted (0x800B0109)"

What? Totally useless. I've just compiled MY application on MY machine and I even cannot run it.

Why not replicate the UAC known/unknown publisher model? And those MS people are then curious why their latest greatest UWP/Store platforms aren't getting enough traction.

UPDATE 2: tried to run my compiled .EXE file without APPX packaging.

Here is what I've got:

"This application can only run in the context of an app container."

Duh. Universal Windows Platform they say? Conquer the world? Nope. It all stops at "the context of an app container".

UPDATE 3:

Settings -> Update and Security -> "For Developers" -> Developer mode ("Install any signed app")

Of course I did this. Does not work as described above. All I want is to run MY just-compiled app without the hoops in loops, for starters. Yep, installing a temp certificate probably would solve this but its a PITA because it expires and requires ceremony. Won't waste my time, sorry. See ya at the next MS Conf. Hope .exe files will be launchable again till that time.

P.S.: Sometimes I miss Sir William Gates

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#75

Post by youdontknowtho »

pjc50 wrote: post #63
youdontknowtho wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. UWP isn't a mobile OS ported to Windows. The whole WinRT is an OS and WinRT is an API set confused things. Forget that there was an ARM tablet. WinRT means the Windows Run Time. It's a set of API's that are built with the Windows OS. The "they made it mobile" part was really a side effect of trying to move to a more managed execution model where the OS took a more aggressive approach to managing the execution of…

> schadenfreude They've built up an enourmous reserve of ill-will that will take years to diminish. It wasn't all that many years ago that they were tangentially involved in SCO's last-ditch attempt to destroy Linux. The Win10 telemetry and forced-updates controversies are ongoing. Everyone can see a possible future in which all the doors for shipping software to users' computers without paying 30% to the platform ho…

It actually was a long time ago that they were "tangentially involved in SCO". That was a very long time ago. My children were babies when that happened. THEY ARE IN COLLEGE NOW.

BTW. That was mainly IBM and Novell that you want to be mad at. Microsoft made a licensing deal with SCO to license Unix. Wow. You really have to reach back on that one. You could have more reasonably chosen how they treated Netscape.

No one ever seems to mention that they invested in Apple at a time when that investment KEPT APPLE ALIVE. But what ever.

The telemetry. It bother you. It doesn't bother me.

The "Get Windows 10" app that people were complaining about? Fair play. That was crap.

I don't know what to say about the last statement. Ask anyone in computer security and they will say, yes it would be great if walled gardens weren't the best idea for getting trustworthy software onto customer systems, but right now it is. They all think that Android is worse than IOS. Platforms that are used by a billion people where you can do anything you want produce malware. There isn't a way around that right now.

Solve that one and you too can be a billionaire.

My feeling is that the "ill will" is more emotional than it is reasonable. I know lots of admins who made up their mind about Windows in the Windows 2000 and 2003 era. It's vastly different in 2016 and far better. It's hardly recognizable.

EDIT: OK OK. Babies may have been hyperbole. Toddlers. They were toddlers.

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#76

Post by douche »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #36
flukus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it may take their desktop with it. The industry doesn't want to invest in a desktop windows app because there is no clear direction. WPF/Win32 etc seem to be getting deprecated, but UWP is too limited.

People who actually make money on windows development know that WPF and Win32 are not deprecated. In fact, they don't really deprecate things. They may stop pushing something as the new hotness...but VB6 apps still run on windows. Those data access technologies that no one uses anymore...those still work on windows. If you are worried about your investment in time not being the new hotness, well that's one thing. If…

Silverlight may be the one glaring exception to that rule that I can think of. I don't think even IE or Edge support that anymore, which makes it dead.

I had an ex-girlfriend whose employer made a big bet on Silverlight for their web app platform... in 2012. Having to rewrite it all in HTML5 and JS a year later almost put them under.

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#77

Post by swiley »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #65
swiley wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I think not having a global filesystem makes things harder for the "average user." Most college students aren't going to only keep their word documents in word for example, they need to email them and upload them to tools like blackboard.

this is why shared storages are also needed, where apps can have a common view of some set of data.

In other words: a global filesystem.

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#78

Post by flukus »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #65
swiley wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I think not having a global filesystem makes things harder for the "average user." Most college students aren't going to only keep their word documents in word for example, they need to email them and upload them to tools like blackboard.

this is why shared storages are also needed, where apps can have a common view of some set of data.

But then all the data people care about will go there. How is that different from /home/user/ ?

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#79

Post by majewsky »

Washuu wrote: post #26
mschuster91 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VB6? That's... the awesome kind of crazy. How does the converter deal with the VB6 runtime that had to be distributed? Oh dude, this brings back some memories... but I have to admit, for long time there was nothing except VB6 if you wanted to put together GUI apps with very little code and a WYSIWYG GUI designer.

When I was about 12 my father gave me a copy of VB6. I used form and image controls to made a pixel based tiled fighting game. Not an actual game engine. Just a horrible hack that actually worked and I was proud of it. It was one of those things that helped me get into programming. (I still have a copy of it.)

I remember implementing a Conway's Game of Life in VB6 with a grid view's cell background colors. Good times.

Re: Win32 and .NET desktop apps can now be published in the Windows Store

#80

Post by youdontknowtho »

syshum wrote: post #72
youdontknowtho wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT isn't good enough? Because they did use MIT. I want Stallman to give more care to the defense industrial base that produces computers than to making sure that the same defense industrial base has a free f*cking compiler to use on the computers it makes.

>MIT isn't good enough? Because they did use MIT. Windows is MIT licensed now? System Center is MIT Licensed? Visual Studio is MIT Licensed? (not core, core is not Visual Studio, it Github's Atom editor with a MS skin) I believe I said ALL software not just some side projects

It's Visual Studio Code...not core. And it's not a skin it's an actively developed fork of Atom.

no windows is not MIT. nor is system center. PowerShell is. PowerShell DSC is. Their OMI broker for Linux is. .Net is. Asp.net is. Their Python tools are. The C# language is developed on video streams with the product team and the community. F# has been open source for a long time. They contribute to Linux, Mesos, docker, Hadoop, and other projects.

I wish that my side projects were as widely used as the C# compiler.

Why don't you just admit that there really isn't anything that they could do. If they did open source Windows you would read some comments written by other people about the code and "pronounce" it the worst code ever written. I can safely say that because here's the thing...YOU'VE ALREADY WON and it's still not enough. Open Source won. They were forced by the sheer awesomeness of it and the energy that people like you brought to open source development to adopt it and push it where ever they possibly can. TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER. Is Windows OSS yet? Not yet, but that is coming. And when it happens you will still have something negative to say about it because this isn't about anything other than your emotional ties to this Microsoft in your mind that has been your favorite boogeyman for years. Guess what? There are actual boogeymen in the world, but focusing on a software vendor keeps you from having to face that. Every computer you buy validates and enforces the defense industrial base of the west. You capitalist infidel, you. All electronics, really, but computers in particular.

You want Visual Studio to be GPL'd? I want to stop flooding the third world with cheap weapons. They need water, not a text editor. Linux doesn't make them more free and Windows doesn't make you less free. It's a stupid privileged argument. Play with your toys and try to be nice, but don't tell me that your toys are more "right" than mine. That's just fucking stupid.

I have had entirely too much coffee, and it's probably time for a new HN account anyway. Cheers.

Post reply on HN