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

101–110 of 158 posts

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

#101

Post by kodfodrasz »

benaadams wrote: post #93
kodfodrasz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you also only then need a firewall, if you use closed source software. When using OpenSource software you can always be sure that nothing will do unauthorized access to your network, willingly or accidentally...

That's a bit naive... Just two examples OpenSSL has had 22 vulnerabilities in 2016 so far [1] Linux has has 336 vulnerabilities in 2016 so far [2] [1] https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/statistics-results?adv_se... [2] https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/statistics-results?adv_se...

I tried to point to the flaw in the parent comment's logic with a sarcastic answer. :)

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

#102

Post by benaadams »

garganzol wrote: post #74
ctolkien wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Did you sign the appx? https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/desktop...

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

#103

Post by benaadams »

wolfgke wrote: post #100
youdontknowtho wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just means using some API's that aren't available unless your app is well behaved. No admin access is the big one. Don't write to \Windows or Program Files. That kind of thing. It doesn't mean...whatever paranoid thing you think it means. Also, its a developer related thing. If you don't have a desktop app that you want to move to the store or bundle in an Appx package for distribution on the web, it doesn't mean…

> It just means using some API's that aren't available unless your app is well behaved. No admin access is the big one. Don't write to \Windows or Program Files. That kind of thing. Does this also include "allocate executable memory" (you need this if you write a JIT compiler)?

Use the "Code generation" permission? https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/uwp/packaging/app-capabil...

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

#104

Post by rahoulb »

flukus wrote: post #86
icebraining wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best trade off I've seen is what Nokia's S60 (and iOS, or so I've heard) did: have granular permissions like Android, but show a dialog when the app first tries to use them, instead of having a laundry list at installation time. You're more likely to think twice when you open your flashlight app and it asks "Do you want to allow [Flashlight App] to read all your contacts?"

It that once off or every time? There have been a few Android apps that started off OK and transitioned to spyware.

On iOS it asks the first time the app wants a particular permission but doesn't ask again. If you want to change your initial choice, you can head to Settings and view/change the grants/revokes by permission or by app.

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

#105

Post by douche »

jmkni wrote: post #97
douche wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Couldn't they have ported to WPF with a lot less effort?

Possibly, but this was, if I recall correctly, sort of a web-based MOOC thingy, so being browser-based was important.

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

#106

Post by jasonkostempski »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #57
flukus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not worried about it dissapearing, I'm worried the modern teh stack will change (it has). Then you start to either lose talent or rebuild the app.

Do what now? Does that mean that I can't build apps in C++ anymore? Because it looks like I can and it also looks like I have more options than I ever have. In fact, I can finally use standard ISO c++ to do more than ever. Do you just mean one UI toolkit over another? I wonder how Adobe has "kept talent" without rebuilding photoshop? If you are worried about keeping your personal skills up to date and focused on an a…

"I wonder how Adobe has "kept talent" without rebuilding photoshop?"

By grabbing their users by the sack and demanding cash they don't deserve under threat of denying access to ones entire body of work.

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

#107

Post by forgotAgain »

So then UWP is basically dead for 99+% of it's use cases.

For mobile: use Xamarin.

For desktop: use win32/.net so you can support pre August 2016 versions of Windows.

For Xbox and ARM where you also need support for desktop and mobile devices: use UWP.

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

#108

Post by pweissbrod »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #75
pjc50 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

2004-2012 I built apps of significant size/$$ for clients employing poorly recommended microsoft tech including silverlight, infopath, webforms, datasets, windows phone 7 and 8, WCF. Hindisght is 2020 and shame partially on me but when you try to be sensible and follow the official recommendations you develop this instinctive flinch over time that happens when microsoft comes out with re-inventions that converts your codebase into legacy overnight.

Yes youre right the 'new' microsoft under nadella is much more accommodating, however I was forced into a place where I couldnt afford the problems the 'old' microsoft bought and it was more logical to adopt open standards. Since I switched to open platforms microsoft has really improved but pardon me if I stick with my open tool stack for the foreseeable future until i see any compelling reason to switch back. In other words, microsoft is now 'as good' as many open platforms, but there isnt really a compelling reason to switch back.

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

#109

Post by chokolad »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #80
syshum wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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,…

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

It's not a fork of Atom. It's independently developed text editor/light IDE which runs on Electron, chromium toolkit created by Atom devs to ease creation of desktop applications using JavaScript and HTML.

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

#110

Post by WorldMaker »

flukus wrote: post #71
kodfodrasz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Steam is a terrible security example because Steam just gives Everyone Read/Write/Execute access to its folder(s) on Windows. The Steam solution to permissions on Windows has always been to basically just give up and not bother.
Post reply on HN