Microsoft slaps Apple Gatekeeper-like controls on Windows 10: Install only apps from store A feature in the Windows Insider Preview Build 15042 allows administrators to block the installation of any Win32 application that is not fetched from Microsoft's software marketplace. This configurable barrier is a new option presented in the beta Windows build. Users – with admin account permissions – will be able to allow …
Can't tell if serious but assuming you are: no, no it won't.
On the off chance it ever did there's other OSes and Microsoft can't even enforce driver signing which is perfectly reasonable and part of the kernel when users don't want it. It'll never happen anyway for a long list of reasons.
MS will never remove that particular option you say? Please, pray tell, what ever gives you that particular delusion?
Given that MS has stripped out all the "Professional" options from Win10Pro & made it so that you have to buy an Educational or Enterprise version to control your updates, telemetry, & various other previously available in the Win10Home & Pro versions, what makes you think they won't strip us of those options as well?
MS is notorious for removing the bits that give us choice, overwriting the options we've set, & ramming their policies down our throats, so what makes you think they'll respect our choices any further than they can tell us "it's for your own good" as usual?
I'm the original AC & I was being serious.
You're being rather delusional if you think MS will *NOT* screw us over any/every way they can find to do so.
That's not pessimism, that's Realism.
Optimism is thinking the light at the end of the tunnel is daylight; pessimism is thinking it's a toll booth; realism is knowing it's an oncomming train & there's no place to hide.
They won't remove it for one very simple reason - it'd force many companies to use Linux.
I work in Healthcare, if they did this we'd be on Linux within 12 months and we'd never be back to Microsoft, so naturally I'm hoping MS do it.
However my biggest problem would be that only 2 of our 200 IT staff have any real 'nix knowledge, they've spent their entire life supporting Windows or Mac OS and only a handful have even used a linux live CD..
You're largely underestimating the capacity of enterprises and consumers to endure Microsoft abusive conduct. All these people had decades to move to Linux and they didn't. Even Munich succumbed to MS pressure and now the're moving back in line with the others.
Please understand that all those who could and who wanted to move to Linux have done it a long time ago. For those remaining with Windows, nothing can possibly determine them to switch. Even you in your post are saying that you would be on Linux not that you've moved to it.
> Even Munich succumbed to MS pressurebribes and now the're moving back in line with the others.
FTFY
Actually that has not been decided yet. The costings aren't in and figures of $66million have been bandied about. The main concern has been SAP and other propriety users when only Windows clients have been available. Within the time scale proposed these users will be using cloud based application clients which will only require a thin client running a browser, so the whole situation is moot.
You're being rather delusional if you think MS will *NOT* screw us over any/every way they can find to do so if that makes them a profit.
FIFI. It's not quite as black and white: MS will not screw you over if there's no profit in there for them. That's why any attempt to do must be met with activity that will result in a hit to profit for Microsoft - it's the the only metric that has *any* influence on what they do. Not legality and certainly not ethics (stop laughing in the back, it was but an example), but affect their income and boy oh boy, will they pay attention.
"FIFI => FIFY. My dog has nothing to do with this."
I had no idea what FIFI meant, so I plugged it into duckduckgo.com. Here's the very first definition:
"Fifi Rabbit Vibrator Review - About.com Dating & Relationships --
For lovers of rabbit vibrators, Fifi takes dual vibration, and simultaneous clitoral and vaginal stimulation ..."
<rolls eyes> Well, yes, of course that's what it means, for fuck's sake. What else would it mean? And you'd have to really love your rabbit to put yourself through all that shit.
MS will not screw you over if there's no profit in there for them.
...
The setting would have an obvious benefit to security by steering users away from potentially backdoored copies of popular applications. By limiting the installation of software to the Windows Store, Redmond could help to ensure that only properly screened apps are installed and eliminate the possibility of users being duped into running malware packages.
The first statement from AC points out how disingenuous the second is. Security is all about understanding and control by the system owner. The given settings will cede control to MS which has goals that are not necessarily in line with those of the system owner and actively discourage awareness and ownership. It might marginally increase security for your standard home user, but only marginally and only for a limited time.
I'm the original AC & I was being serious.
Well yeah you're wrong. And the reason you're wrong is Microsoft like being a trading entity. They won't they can't and lets be sensible.
What you're talking about simply isn't a thing for the same reasons you're all getting uppity about it. If it was a thing they'd stop you doing things like strong crypto first, not removing people's ability to run software which would be broken through in ~30 seconds by literally half the people on the planet who write software.
This nonsense is why people like Trump can talk about fake news and divert attention away from lacking competence, there's no truth to be found in this thread. As a joke it works, okay whatever, as an actual proposition it's all sorts of dumb. Send in the downvotes idiots. They'd have to get Intel and AMD on board first and also remove from existence every single other OS. None of these things are happening even IF internally at Microsoft it's something they want to do - which it absolutely, categorically is not.
Also stop coming back at people with corporations are all corporationy you look like fools.
Well yeah you're wrong. And the reason you're wrong is Microsoft like being a trading entity. They won't they can't and lets be sensible.
What you're talking about simply isn't a thing for the same reasons you're all getting uppity about it. If it was a thing they'd stop you doing things like strong crypto first, not removing people's ability to run software which would be broken through in ~30 seconds by literally half the people on the planet who write software.
This nonsense is why people like Trump can talk about fake news and divert attention away from lacking competence, there's no truth to be found in this thread. As a joke it works, okay whatever, as an actual proposition it's all sorts of dumb. Send in the downvotes idiots. They'd have to get Intel and AMD on board first and also remove from existence every single other OS. None of these things are happening even IF internally at Microsoft it's something they want to do - which it absolutely, categorically is not.
Downvote? Gladly!
1) "Well yeah you're wrong. And the reason you're wrong is Microsoft like being a trading entity. They won't they can't and lets be sensible."
He's wrong because he's wrong because YOU say so?
2)"If it was a thing they'd stop you doing things like strong crypto first, not removing people's ability to run software which would be broken through in ~30 seconds by literally half the people on the planet who write software."
Two things here - (a) why would they stop you using strong crypto? (b) Why do you think half of programmers can rewrite windows core executables and (b2) If so, then why haven't they already borken the windows telemetry?
3)"They'd have to get Intel and AMD on board first and also remove from existence every single other OS"
(a) Why? Why would AMD and Intel have to be on board and (b) why would microsoft have to remove other OSs?
Please elaborate with your awesome wisdom....
If so, then why haven't they already borken the windows telemetry?
I dunno maybe because they, y'know, have.
Why would AMD and Intel have to be on board and (b) why would microsoft have to remove other OSs?
Because it'd take a hardware security change to make this happen on general purpose computing devices that would have to come from processor manufacturers at a hardware level to be effective in a way the average toddler couldn't work around it. On the other OSes thing; probably because everybody (well, most) would jump ship to a company/community that wasn't trying to end general purpose computing in a way that - FWIW - Microsoft have not only never professed to interest in but also helped engineer in the first place.
IF it ever happens I'll be front and centre shouting Microsoft down but can we wait until Microsoft's board have caught up with your insinuations first?
The AC just above me already spanked you with your own arguments, thank you other AC, so I'll just leave you with the following:
Take your favorite search engine, even Bing will do, & search for all the times a Win10 update has broken something, removed functionality, rendered a device unuseable (webcam, microphone, printer, etc), or otherwise removed a user's ability to administer their own computer. That list alone refutes everything you've said & proves you the fool.
Now please go back to the kiddie pool, us adults hate it when you shit where we swim.
Quotr It'll never happen anyway for a long list of reasons.
People said that about METRO/or whateved it is called this week.
Then look what happened
People said that about the forced updates
Then look what happened
This will come, as sure as tomorrow is Wednesday (writing this on a Tuesday)
Then????
The daily tithe for MS so that they will graciously let you get at your data (of which they probable have gleaned everything their AD partners need).
Probably not until 2020 but it will come. Downvote this all you like but MS's stockholders will demand OS licensing revenue returns to its old levels. There only so much blood that can be extracted from the Server OS Licensing.
Also, as Office will be only subsctiption based by then, adding another $5.00/day won't seem too much of a hardship now will it eh?
"On the off chance it ever did there's other OSes and Microsoft can't even enforce driver signing which is perfectly reasonable and part of the kernel when users don't want it."
I'm presuming the Windows store programs will have to be signed in some way since I can't see how else it would stop someone downloading a .exe manually bypassing the install system and simply running it. In my limited experience of OS/X it simply blocks programs being installed using the apple package manager. If you download and unpack a tar file and run whatever is there it doesn't even notice.
> It's for the Cloud edition. Head over to Windows Central to read what's going on.
The Cloud edition will not be able to install programs that are not in the MS store. There is no option for that.
The standard W10 editions will have the option to disable installs that were not in the store. Whether this becomes set by default or set permanently (as the cloud edition is) is a matter of speculation.
I am not sure why you think this is 'anti-MS rhetoric'.
Why do think programs are now called "apps"? This was always the plan. What better way to block viruses than to prevent you from installing any "app" that isn't approved by Microsoft! Hey, it worked for the iPhone! (Except the iPhone is a different tool with a different purpose and had no legacy apps to worry about.) It will be billed as a security feature -- you cannot install any app except through our store -- but in reality it will be a way to prevent you from installing any program you without Microsoft's approval.
"That is a nice program you got there Adobe ... it would be a shame if no one could install Photoshop anymore. But don't worry, you put Photoshop in our app store and pay us 10% of every sale, we will make sure everything will work just fine." The mafia would be proud.
"That is a nice program you got there Adobe ... it would be a shame if no one could install Photoshop anymore. But don't worry, you put Photoshop in our app store and pay us 10% of every sale, we will make sure everything will work just fine." The mafia would be proud.
Not to worry. They tried that scam before with demanding hardware drivers to be signed, and that didn't last long when they discovered that not everyone was willing to part with the frankly idiotic amounts of cash they were asking for it and support costs went through the roof.
I can't see that last long, assuming they get it off the ground at all. If my experience with Office365 is anything to go by, the assumption is "no". Microsoft just doesn't know the meaning of making things easy and I can't see adding to the burden being a popular move - not to mention the howls of the anti-virus crowd who would see their ability to profit off the many deficiencies in Windows affected.
Give it a few months. It'll pass.
Google Play was a low-rent slum from day one. Seedy barely disguised gambling shops, and gaudy billboards line the street.
Apple's store is like the Brazil Olympic stadium 8 months on. The spectacle of "There's an app for that" now tarnished and covered in filth. Scams are all that remain in the keyword stuffed directory.
Microsoft's store is ghost town. All the infrastructure was built, no expense spared, but the planned community is stark and lifeless. The people never came.
Win32 is the black-market. Thriving by virtue of having exactly what people want, but the authorities are determined to stamp it out.
Surely what most other operating systems need is Linux like package management so I can add a trusted "store" (repository) from a developer for a product I want and updates feed into the general update mechanism. This is the one thing I think FOSS has nailed. You can add a store concept much like Mint or Ubuntu have the software browser but also allow users to add their own resources. After all, what we really desire is that flawed software is patched.
My preference is the way Arch handles unofficial applications with the AUR. It is a one stop shop for any unofficial application with a plethora of excellent choices both FOSS and commercial. Also, these applications are updated with the rest of the install.
The real problem I see with Slurp and a lesser extent Fruit is how easy is it to add an application to the walled garden. Given that both are commercial enterprises they are apt to make this harder than it should be. Also, what third party applications will be granted the status of officially supported by either.. Linux distros have a varying number of officially supported third party applications in the main repositories.
Apple's store is like the Brazil Olympic stadium 8 months on. The spectacle of "There's an app for that" now tarnished and covered in filth. Scams are all that remain in the keyword stuffed directory.
Agree - you almost have to treat it as Google now: what you find on the first page after a search or category selection is OK but dig deeper and you find rather aged apps, some of which won't even work on current versions of iOS.
Revenue security ... more like Rentier greed, because they are not satisfied with proper selling revenue!
e.g. People buy homes, because it can be significantly cheaper than renting, especially after the mortgage is paid off!
<Napalm>
When will these F's get a clue, they crashed and burned with mobile, the mobile model was always idiotic for PCs, and the Surface is not worth the ridiculous expense! I always consider Google Chrome OS as pointless and useless, the same for the Apple Air(head).
I don't want any of them F's apps; I only tolerate windows for the 3rd party software I use, so have aggressively disabled the loads of unwanted dross, including the apps store and uninstalled most of the bundled apps, except for trivial stuff like the calculator.
If them F's try and make crapps mandatory they better be prepared for massive case action legal cases against them, including for fraud and monopoly abuse!
</Napalm>
They forced and tricked people into 'upgrading' to 10. Destroying computers and damaging businesses. A few were vocal and even fewer people sued. So now the way is clear for them to pull this shit as they know they will get away with it. I doubt that many sheep will do anything but roll over and spread 'em.
"Starting with 15042, you can block installation of Win32 apps on ANY edition. Even Enterprise."
Okay - this is what catches my eye: "ANY edition". Really.
I find this very interesting because last year Microsoft removed the ability to block the Windows store from all editions except Enterprise.
Their reasoning there was that such granular control was really only necessary at the 'Enterprise' level. Odd* then that functionality to force usage of the Windows Store does not fall under that same classification - as a level of granularity only necessary at the 'Enterprise' level.
In other words, forcing Windows Store is free while blocking Windows Store costs money.
Nice move folks - good to see we were all wrong in our cynicism.
* - Not odd.
Many computers are used as media / internet consumption gateways and companies want to follow Apple and make money with those. The gatekeeper controls might just reflect a benign motivation to keep the fully-fledged OS running in parallel with the pared-down consumer OS. I would see that as a positive: it'll allow us to use the consumer devices for real work by turning off the dumb-it-down-for-me switch.
Did I just insinuate that Microsoft might have benign motivations? What happened to this world?
We knew this was coming. We know who Micro-shaft is. We know they don't care about end-users at ALL. We're just "revenue-generating pawns" to them.
And so, Win-10-nic with its MANDATORY "updates" and 'upgrades" *MUST* soon "protect us from ourselves", and require that *EVERYTHING* go through "the Store", because THEY must have a TOLLBOOTH ready to COLLECT THE TOLL on EVERYTHING, even if it's INDIRECT. You know, like "must SIGN the application" and "must be SIGNED BY MICRO-SHAFT". Even if it's a free, open source application.
Nevermind that native Win32 applications run FASTER and BETTER. That's not important. What _IS_ important is "what is good for Micro-shaft".
Well, while they slowly commit business-suicide, the customers are "revolting" (well, how Micro-shaft sees us). Except soon enough, I expect REBELLING.
CRapp store "Ghetto" indeed.
Irritated to find that Apple want credit card details even to download free apps. Then Google started to demand Play was installed in order to download Android apps. Now Microsoft goes the same way. I can see why some control is needed, assuming they actually do weed out nasty stuff.
Glad to see that Linux apps still easily available.
Apple have some CC details of mine but it is for a card that has expired and for an account that I no longer have. I downloaded a free app yesterday without issue.
So my tip is to give them the details of a card that is about to expire.
But AFAIK, so far their CC DB has not been hacked unlike a good many other retailers.
As a Windows application developer for many years, I'm glad to be out of it now. I abandoned Windows with the advent of 10, but started winding down from 8 onwards. Microsoft were making it increasingly difficult (or irritating) for my customers to install software from my site and I wasn't prepared to jump through the hurdles necessary to get my software onto their sucky store. So I've shut up shop completely. I'm 100% Linux now.
"And of course, to actually buy something from the app store you need an account with MS, so they get to slurp some details, at bare minimum a contact email."
How does that differ from Google Play / App Store / Steam etc?
With Linux you don't need an account, but then again you can't BUY anything from the software repos.
Non-Admin accounts can presently be configured to not allow the users (kids) to install ANY software.
This new feature is basically just a subtle adjustment to permit finer control of the Admin's (Dad's) software installation policy. Potentially allowing slightly more freedom to the untrained Users (kids).
... but, as the first person to post has pointed out, since it's a Microsoft thing, they're obviously doing this with the intention of removing that option of control at some point in the future in order to maximise profits and force this on all of us whether we want it or not...
Never mind that legacy 32-bit apps have been a major blocker in tightening up security in Windows - which the very same sort of people who complain about this sort of thing are all too quick to lambast...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
