Google Chrome won't be allowed on Windows 10 S(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Google Chrome won't be allowed on Windows 10 S
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-wont-be-allowed-on-windows-10-s/
54 comments
Now it's an industry practice (iOS, Chrome OS) so they're not villains anymore.
Users that install unapproved apps (via jailbreaks and vulnerabilities) are villains now.
Users that install unapproved apps (via jailbreaks and vulnerabilities) are villains now.
s/villains/customers/
Windows 10 S is "only" 50 bucks away from running all those unapproved apps.
Windows 10 S is "only" 50 bucks away from running all those unapproved apps.
[deleted]
It's cheaper than that... I bought two upgrades from Windows 10 Home to Pro on ebay for less than $30.
> Home to Pro
We're talking about Windows 10 S.
We're talking about Windows 10 S.
Fair enough... I guess I was thinking the license upgrade TO Pro would work the same for S and it does for Home. Then again maybe MS will really check both source and destination and reject Home to Pro upgrade keys. /shrug.
The anti-trust issues aren't really the same on many fronts.
The current administration won't prosecute them. They aren't the majority platform anymore. They are actually working more in Open Source than is easy to convey in one comment.
The current administration won't prosecute them. They aren't the majority platform anymore. They are actually working more in Open Source than is easy to convey in one comment.
> The current administration won't prosecute them.
Anti-trust isn't the exclusive domain of the US, Microsoft have a long and storied history with the European Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission
Anti-trust isn't the exclusive domain of the US, Microsoft have a long and storied history with the European Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission
They may have to relax centennial rules to allow 3rd party browsers if there's enough pressure.
The motivation really seems to be pushing UWP, which sandboxes apps, and de-emphasizing the 17-year-old win32 stack.
The motivation really seems to be pushing UWP, which sandboxes apps, and de-emphasizing the 17-year-old win32 stack.
That's essentially the same thing that Google is doing on Chrome OS and Apple on iOS. There's absolutely no difference between it.
I highly doubt that Google will sue them for doing the same thing they're doing on the same market even (cheap, affordable laptops).
I highly doubt that Google will sue them for doing the same thing they're doing on the same market even (cheap, affordable laptops).
Except that nobody wants Internet Explorer on iOS or Chrome OS ... or any other OS. So it's moot.
Is Firefox allowed on chromebooks? I think the comparison with Chromebook is more appropriate than iOS devices.
You can set the chromebook in developer mode and have a full linux system with all the software you want.
Or you can install the android version of firefox.
So yes, it is allowed.
Or you can install the android version of firefox.
So yes, it is allowed.
It's a minor detail, but I feel there's a difference between "allowed" and "possible". Developer mode has a bunch of caveats that neuter many of the selling points of ChromeOS and I'd argue is more akin to a "jailbreak", just one that Google doesn't play cat and mouse trying to stop you from using.
The Android term "rooting" would be closer than the iOS term "jailbreak", precisely because of the reason you cited: Google doesn't lock down ChromeOS like a jail.
Good call. I agree that's a more apt comparison. That said, it's still really locked down, it's just there's a key on the wall next to the door with a sign saying "beware of the gremlins".
You can still install the android version though, it is actually the same core as the desktop version and supports extensions like adblock and noscript.
What you can not do is replace the "os shell" that is chrome without developer mode, but I'm not sure that would even work with firefox even if it was "allowed".
What you can not do is replace the "os shell" that is chrome without developer mode, but I'm not sure that would even work with firefox even if it was "allowed".
Firefox for Android can be installed on Chromebooks. So yes, other browsers can be installed on Chromebooks.
Chromebooks do not allow any other browser besides Chrome. I don't see how this is different.
No, you can install any browsers from the Play Store on a Chromebook that supports installing Android apps.
https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/7021273?hl=en
Firefox runs on a Chromebook just fine: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...
https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/7021273?hl=en
Firefox runs on a Chromebook just fine: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...
> No, you can install any browsers from the Play Store on a Chromebook that supports installing Android apps.
Chromebooks that support Android apps also support the "unknown sources" setting that allows sideloading APKs, so you aren't restricted to the store.
Chromebooks that support Android apps also support the "unknown sources" setting that allows sideloading APKs, so you aren't restricted to the store.
Well, it's the same thing: you can install any browser from Microsoft's Store on Windows 10 S.
So, Google will either have to release Chrome targeted for Windows platform (same way Firefox did on Android) or not be available to Windows 10 S users.
So, Google will either have to release Chrome targeted for Windows platform (same way Firefox did on Android) or not be available to Windows 10 S users.
> Chromebooks do not allow any other browser besides Chrome.
Current Chromebooks support Android apps, including sideloading APKs, so that's not true at all. Not only can you install browsers from the Play Store, you can install a browser packaged as an APK even if Google policies would not allow it in the store.
Current Chromebooks support Android apps, including sideloading APKs, so that's not true at all. Not only can you install browsers from the Play Store, you can install a browser packaged as an APK even if Google policies would not allow it in the store.
Currently, there's no difference because about equal numbers are using Chromebooks and Windows 10 S. But that may change in the future.
In addition to all the Android runtime related ways mentioned:
With the Developer Mode toggled (free), you get full access to the underlying Linux system. You can even run a completely separate Linux desktop on it.
With the Developer Mode toggled (free), you get full access to the underlying Linux system. You can even run a completely separate Linux desktop on it.
[deleted]
TLDR: Another recent ZDnet article explains that it's a rule for desktop browsers not being allowed by the centennial packaging process. Chrome, others are win32, and would be "packaged" if it weren't for this rule.
so, there's no reason why chrome couldn't be included in the store.
They should also get Opera and Firefox onboard.
They should also get Opera and Firefox onboard.
Actually if you read the article, it clearly states another criterion which is the same on iOS and ChromeOS. That is, a web browser must use the HTML renderer and JavaScript engine from the host OS.
> Actually if you read the article, it clearly states another criterion which is the same on iOS and ChromeOS.
ChromeOS has no such policy, even if the Play Store does (which, AFAICT, it doesn't) since ChromeOS, like Android, allows sideloading Android APKs and isn't limited to Store apps.
Because of sideloading, Play Store restrictions are not Android/ChromeOS restrictions. But Win 10S is Store apps only, so Windows Store restrictions are also Win 10 S restrictions.
ChromeOS has no such policy, even if the Play Store does (which, AFAICT, it doesn't) since ChromeOS, like Android, allows sideloading Android APKs and isn't limited to Store apps.
Because of sideloading, Play Store restrictions are not Android/ChromeOS restrictions. But Win 10S is Store apps only, so Windows Store restrictions are also Win 10 S restrictions.
> Windows 10 S, announced last week, allows users to install only apps that are distributed through the Windows Store.
What if I want to compile and run my own executables? How does this restriction work?
What if I want to compile and run my own executables? How does this restriction work?
Likely signing by Microsoft? Based on what I've read, you will not be able to run your own executables. This is a big issue for University students who are often required to install textbook-sourced software for labs, class participation, etc.
Perhaps if you install a Visual Studio app from the Windows Store and use that to generate an executable, it will somehow sign the executable?
Meta: At what point does the post rate limit get lifted? If I post a couple of comments while browsing the articles and then attempt to reply to a comment with a question, I have already somehow hit the rate limit and I am blocked from posting for a few hours. It seems like there should be an exception for replying to a question on my own comment.
Perhaps if you install a Visual Studio app from the Windows Store and use that to generate an executable, it will somehow sign the executable?
Meta: At what point does the post rate limit get lifted? If I post a couple of comments while browsing the articles and then attempt to reply to a comment with a question, I have already somehow hit the rate limit and I am blocked from posting for a few hours. It seems like there should be an exception for replying to a question on my own comment.
Its a combination of signing and app packaging.
The technologies to look into are APPX, app container, and the Centennial Bridge. Basically, any application can be included in the store. They are using application virtualization from a prior product called APP-V to protect the system from applications tampering with important pieces. It's long over due. It also provides a unified way to update applications through the store.
The store is how they distribute the Ubuntu userland that they ship with WSL...it's very capable.
Up until now they only let people publish a very narrow selection of applications to the store. That strategy failed and now they are going to start pushing Win32 developers to take advantage of the new servicing and packaging system.
It really is very good. I really, really, hope that this doesn't get shot down by herp-a-derp style Microsoft hate.
The technologies to look into are APPX, app container, and the Centennial Bridge. Basically, any application can be included in the store. They are using application virtualization from a prior product called APP-V to protect the system from applications tampering with important pieces. It's long over due. It also provides a unified way to update applications through the store.
The store is how they distribute the Ubuntu userland that they ship with WSL...it's very capable.
Up until now they only let people publish a very narrow selection of applications to the store. That strategy failed and now they are going to start pushing Win32 developers to take advantage of the new servicing and packaging system.
It really is very good. I really, really, hope that this doesn't get shot down by herp-a-derp style Microsoft hate.
If, for instance, I build my game with Unity, and would like to distribute this alpha build to friends to test it before it ships, how would I do that?
They have ways to do that. You would have to check with the store.
Also, this doesn't mean that if your friends are using Windows 10 home or pro that they won't be able to install Appx packages. They can. Seriously, it's just a zip file with a manifest. On home/pro and up, users can install Appx packages by double clicking them.
Only Windows 10 S has the restriction that all software installs have to use the store. The thing to watch will be the way that Windows 10 S actually maintains performance and security in ways that the other versions of Win10 can't. As long as users can install services or device drivers as part of an install it's always going to have the same problems.
For something to change it actually has to change. We all know that Windows installers do dumb sh1t. Appx packages run with the same performance and have the same power as normal win32 apps. The only thing they can't do is modify the system in dangerous ways.
Also, there is an Appx for Servers that is being used for Nano server. It does allow service installation and more serious modification of the system...because it has to. It's still a great packaging technology even if you don't use the store or other elements of their plan.
Also, this doesn't mean that if your friends are using Windows 10 home or pro that they won't be able to install Appx packages. They can. Seriously, it's just a zip file with a manifest. On home/pro and up, users can install Appx packages by double clicking them.
Only Windows 10 S has the restriction that all software installs have to use the store. The thing to watch will be the way that Windows 10 S actually maintains performance and security in ways that the other versions of Win10 can't. As long as users can install services or device drivers as part of an install it's always going to have the same problems.
For something to change it actually has to change. We all know that Windows installers do dumb sh1t. Appx packages run with the same performance and have the same power as normal win32 apps. The only thing they can't do is modify the system in dangerous ways.
Also, there is an Appx for Servers that is being used for Nano server. It does allow service installation and more serious modification of the system...because it has to. It's still a great packaging technology even if you don't use the store or other elements of their plan.
>This is a big issue for University students who are often required to install textbook-sourced software for labs, class participation, etc.
How is this "big issue" almost never brought up in the context of Chromebooks eating up the Education market?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231353
How is this "big issue" almost never brought up in the context of Chromebooks eating up the Education market?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231353
because universities don't buy mobile devices for their students/don't tell them what to buy, and thus are not part of that sector of the "education market".
(And of course there are tons of universities where this is not an issue, or students buy a chrome book as a secondary device, or ...)
(And of course there are tons of universities where this is not an issue, or students buy a chrome book as a secondary device, or ...)
> This is a big issue for University students who are often required to install textbook-sourced software for labs, class participation, etc.
They will be able to code in Visual Basic for Applications. Why teach ancient languages for 70s mainframes in universities? Universities should prepare people for modern offices. Even MIT dropped Lisp long time ago. Why teach multiplication of columns of numbers when you can teach automated Mail Merge in MS Word? Why solve problems from chess when you can make Colourful Agendas with modern charts?
They will be able to code in Visual Basic for Applications. Why teach ancient languages for 70s mainframes in universities? Universities should prepare people for modern offices. Even MIT dropped Lisp long time ago. Why teach multiplication of columns of numbers when you can teach automated Mail Merge in MS Word? Why solve problems from chess when you can make Colourful Agendas with modern charts?
While I agree with this sentiment the problem is all the old professors with tenure who will never leave and are stuck in their 1970s ways.
One option, from the article:
If people would like to access apps from other stores and services, they can switch to Windows 10 Pro at any time.There's a huge difference between "let students run wild and install any shit" and "publish a whitelist of allowed non-UWP apps via group policy".
For $50.
Maybe some sort of self signed cert that only that machine will be able to run your executable?
> What if I want to compile and run my own executables?
Then you pay money to upgrade to the real Windows 10.
Then you pay money to upgrade to the real Windows 10.
You can use Windows 10. Like iOS and Chrome(ish), Windows 10 S looks like it's designed for non-developers.
Isn't it just as allowed as it is on iOS for example?
The developer in the article could convert his app from Chromium to UWP and resubmit: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/hwa-chr...
They will change their mind I guess...
This is not an IE-6 time again.
This is not an IE-6 time again.
10.2.1
Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate HTML and JavaScript engines provided by the Windows Platform.
If that's true, then anti-trust issues will once again loom. This time, MS will not be able to drive their competitor (Google) out of business like they did Netscape.