Tim Sweeney believes that Microsoft will harm Steam with Windows 10 updates

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

The bug, was that, those programs needed to be manually re-installed.

 

Microsoft knew about the bug, but couldn't fix it, so they created the message, in case that bug was encountered.

 

Otherwise, why would Windows allow you to reinstall them, and then use them without issues.

 

Just like the messages saying "program not responding" or "program has crashed" have been made just in case.

No it was not a bug. Microsoft had to specifically design it so that it snooped though all your installed programs in order to even detect that they were installed. Microsoft should have 0 business looking though which programs I have installed.

 

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

What you're saying, is that it would actually be easier for Apple to force the store as the only way to get apps (and then put as much censorship as they want), then it would be for Microsoft.

Yes it would. Luckily for me, I don't use OS X so I don't really care.

 

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

The article doesn't say anything, about how advanced the "function" can be. It can be anything.

 

It can be something as simple as somebody making an app, than can open a new type of file, which Windows can't by itself.

 

The fact, that one API has more limitations than another, is an entirely separate problem, which has nothing to do with open platform vs closed platform.

 

Open platform vs closed platform is about censorship.

So basically, if I made an OS and the only thing a developer could do with the entire platform was make text output (and no input), then you would consider it an open platform? Since you don't seem to think that functionality of the programs developers are allowed to create has anything to do with how open/closed a platform is.

So just because my fictional OS allowed for "hello, world!" programs it means it is completely open?

Again, openness is a spectrum just because we get stupid shit like this example if we follow your (wrong) definition.

 

Openness vs closeness is about freedom to do whatever YOU want. If a platform only allowed for hello world programs then it sure as hell isn't open.
 

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

Quote

An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition and interpretations vary with usage.

So, the only thing, that we know for sure, is that it's publicly available.

 

Everybody has a different definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard#Specific_definitions_of_an_open_standard

 

Open platform is not a spectrum, but open standard is.

No, UWP is not an open standard.

 

You'd have to be a moron to assume that UWP is an open standard. I can't think of a single definition where UWP actually qualifies as an open standard.

I think the best definition of open standard comes from IEEE, ISOC, W3C, IETF and IAB (which all have the same definition).

Here is their definition, and my text in red explaining why UWP fails that requirement:

Quote

1. Cooperation

Respectful cooperation between standards organizations, whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual property rules of the others.

 

UWP fails this by implementing nonstandard extensions to C++, and Microsoft does not provide any support or help for anyone who would want to modify UWP to work on for example GNU/Linux. UWP is a Microsoft product, for use with Microsoft products only.

 

2. Adherence to Principles

Adherence to the five fundamental principles of standards development:

• Due process. Decisions are made with equity and fairness among participants. No one party dominates or guides standards development. Standards processes are transparent and opportunities exist to appeal decisions. Processes for periodic standards review and updating are well defined.
• Broad consensus. Processes allow for all views to be considered and addressed, such that agreement can be found across a range of interests.
• Transparency. Standards organizations provide advance public notice of proposed standards development activities, the scope of work to be undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible records of decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions are provided. Public comment periods are provided before final standards approval and adoption.
• Balance. Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by any particular person, company or interest group.
• Openness. Standards processes are open to all interested and informed parties.

UWP was developed solely by Microsoft so it fails all 5 of these criteria.

3. Collective Empowerment

Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards that:

• are chosen and defined based on technical merit, as judged by the contributed expertise of each participant;
  Again, it was designed solely by Microsoft, and this one is based on the idea that an open standard is designed by multiple companies working together.
• provide global interoperability, scalability, stability, and resiliency;
  UWP fails this because it was not designed for interoperability outside of Microsoft.
• enable global competition;
  UWP is meant to hinder competition since it only works on Microsoft's own products.
• serve as building blocks for further innovation; and
• contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity.

4. Availability

Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have defined procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair terms. Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND).

UWP specifications are not available so that another company can implement it. Before you go on about how "oh but others can develop UWP apps so therefore the specs are open and others can implement and deploy them", that's not what they are referring to. An open standard is something like OSPF. The OSPF specifications defines everything about the protocol, which makes it possible for multiple companies to take the specification, implement it on their routers, and then have the routers from multiple companies such as HP and Cisco work together.

The open standard is not the final implementation of OSPF, the code that makes it work. The standard is what companies use to create their implementation.

 

5. Voluntary Adoption

Standards are voluntarily adopted and success is determined by the market.

 

[alextulu]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Microsoft had to specifically design it so that it snooped though all your installed programs in order to even detect that they were installed.

So, why was he able to reinstall all the programs, that were removed, and continue to use them without issues.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Yes it would. Luckily for me, I don't use OS X so I don't really care.

I also don't use MacOS, but I can't just ignore, that Apple receives no criticism.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

So basically, if I made an OS and the only thing a developer could do with the entire platform was make text output (and no input), then you would consider it an open platform?

MS-DOS has lots of limitations, and it's still an open platform.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Again, openness is a spectrum just because we get stupid shit like this example if we follow your (wrong) definition.

 

Openness vs closeness is about freedom to do whatever YOU want. If a platform only allowed for hello world programs then it sure as hell isn't open.

But, you just gave a clear definition of what it means to be closed, and what it means to be open, meaning that it's not a spectrum.

 

You are contradicting yourself.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Openness vs closeness is about freedom to do whatever YOU want.

That's only possible, if the platform is also open source, which is different, than the platform being open.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

No, UWP is not an open standard.

Regardless of what you think about open standard vs closed standard, the fact is, that Microsoft allows us to install any app without censorship, and that's more important.

[LAwLz]

59 minutes ago, alextulu said:

So, why was he able to reinstall all the programs, that were removed, and continue to use them without issues.

You don't get it do you? I don't care about what happened next. The entire concept that Microsoft is scanning my computer, looking at what programs I have installed, and then can delete any of them whether I like it or not, is deeply disturbing. They should not be able to do that at all. End of discussion.

 

59 minutes ago, alextulu said:

I also don't use MacOS, but I can't just ignore, that Apple receives no criticism.

You should check out my other posts regarding OS X then. I regularly says it is shit. This thread is not about OS X though, so bringing it up is just a poor attempt at a red herring.

Even if OS X was as big of an issue as Windows (it isn't, since less people are affected), it still does not mean we should stop talking about Windows.

Bad actions made by other companies does not justify the bad actions of Microsoft. Wanna know why you probably see a lot less criticism of OS X on these forums? It's because this forum is like 95% Windows users.

More users = more attention, both positive and negative.

 

59 minutes ago, alextulu said:

MS-DOS has lots of limitations, and it's still an open platform.

You are once again using the incorrect definition of open platform where something is either completely open or completely closed. It is a spectrum.

 

59 minutes ago, alextulu said:

But, you just gave a clear definition of what it means to be closed, and what it means to be open, meaning that it's not a spectrum.

 

You are contradicting yourself.

No it is still a spectrum, because I might have the freedom to do some things, but not other things. I am not contradicting myself.

 

I strongly recommend you look up different open source licenses and how they differ. For example GPL vs Apache vs WTFPL. They are clearly different levels of "openness", with WTFPL literally saying that you can do whatever the fuck you want, while GPL puts up quite a few restrictions. They are both open licenses, but they differ in the amount of "openness".

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

That's only possible, if the platform is also open source, which is different, than the platform being open.

No it's not. Again, it's a spectrum. Being open source most certainly helps a platform to be more open, but since it is a spectrum something does not necessarily have to be open source to also be called open. OpenGL vs DirectX vs Metal. That's three very distinct levels of openness.

 

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

Regardless of what you think about open standard vs closed standard, the fact is, that Microsoft allows us to install any app without censorship, and that's more important.

It's not what I think about open vs closed standards. It is the definition created by multiple open standards organizations such as the IETF and IEEE. This is not "your opinion vs mine", it is once again you saying "1+1=4 because my definition of 1 is that it's two". Sorry but everyone else has already agreed that 1 is one, and 2 is two.

 

Sure, being able to distribute your application without approval from Microsoft is very important. For consumers and developers it might be the most important thing even. But that does not mean everything else is unimportant and should be ignored.

The direction Microsoft is taking Windows is very worrying, and I think it is very counterproductive to tell others to not worry about the gun Microsoft is pointing towards their heads.

[alextulu]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

it still does not mean we should stop talking about Windows.

I never said, that we should stop talking about Windows.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Bad actions made by other companies does not justify the bad actions of Microsoft.

I never said that. I only said, that Apple could do the same thing, if they wanted.

 

I only brought it up, because I find it weird, that even though both Apple and Microsoft are capable of forcing the store as the only way to get apps (and have censorship on the store), people only criticize Microsoft for this.

 

If people want to be fair, then they should criticize both Apple and Microsoft for this.

[LAwLz]

40 minutes ago, alextulu said:

I never said, that we should stop talking about Windows.

 

I never said that. I only said, that Apple could do the same thing, if they wanted.

 

I only brought it up, because I find it weird, that even though both Apple and Microsoft are capable of forcing the store as the only way to get apps (and have censorship on the store), people only criticize Microsoft for this.

 

If people want to be fair, then they should criticize both Apple and Microsoft for this.

Like I said before, it is perfectly normal and expected. That's because the majority of users here use Windows, not OS X.

It's like saying "it's weird that people are talking about the US election here, when Benin had an election not too long ago and barely anyone talked about that one".

 

If this forum had been 95% people living in the republic of Benin you would probably have seen posts about it. Since most people here don't live in Benin however, the things happening in that country are pretty irrelevant to the majority of us, and therefore won't get as much attention as other things.

[alextulu]

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

That's because the majority of users here use Windows, not OS X.

Linus talks a lot about Apple, so I assumed, that people are interested.