Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.microsoft.windows > #966 > unrolled thread

Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.microsoft.windows

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2021-06-17 12:04 +1200
    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2021-06-17 01:52 +0100
      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> - 2021-06-17 08:18 -0500
    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-17 11:04 -0700
      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> - 2021-06-17 14:17 -0400
      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-18 13:57 +0100
        Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-18 10:58 -0700
          Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-18 14:11 -0400
            Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-18 11:42 -0700
              Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-18 15:34 -0400
                Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-18 20:48 +0100
                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-18 15:53 -0400
                    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-19 09:21 +0100
                      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 09:03 -0400
                        Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-19 14:48 +0100
                          Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 10:12 -0400
                            Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-19 17:00 +0100
                              Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 14:22 -0400
                                Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-20 00:04 +0100
                                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-21 11:27 -0400
                          Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-06-19 12:15 -0400
                            Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 14:22 -0400
                              Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-06-19 23:13 -0400
                                Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-20 09:49 +0100
                                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-06-20 14:29 -0400
                                    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-21 07:55 +0100
                                      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2021-06-21 08:35 -0400
                                        Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David_B <BDon10@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-06-21 16:56 +0100
                                          Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2021-06-21 16:02 -0400
                                            Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-21 22:29 +0100
                                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-21 11:27 -0400
                                    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-06-21 21:34 -0400
                                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2021-06-21 14:53 -0300
                                Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-21 11:27 -0400
                                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2021-06-21 14:50 -0300
                                    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-06-21 21:40 -0400
                                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-06-21 21:39 -0400
                            Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-19 21:42 +0100
                              Further thoughts invited (Was -[ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1) David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-20 09:55 +0100
                                Re: Subthread ended (Was -[ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2021-06-20 08:25 -0400
                                  Re: Subthread ended (Was -[ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1) David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.invalid> - 2021-06-20 18:33 +0100
                                    Re: Subthread ended (Was -[ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2021-06-20 15:53 -0300
                              Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2021-06-20 11:27 -0300
                Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-18 13:48 -0700
                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-18 17:16 -0400
                    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-18 16:02 -0700
                      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-19 12:27 +0000
                        Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-19 07:28 -0700
                      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 09:03 -0400
                        Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-19 07:29 -0700
                          Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 11:06 -0400
          Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-19 10:57 +0000
            Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-19 07:47 -0700
              Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 11:06 -0400
                Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-19 08:55 -0700
                  Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-19 14:22 -0400
                    Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-19 12:34 -0700
                      Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-06-21 11:27 -0400
              Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-19 20:09 +0000
                Re: [ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1 Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-06-19 13:58 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#1009 — Re: Subthread ended (Was -[ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1)

On 20/06/2021 13:25, Paul wrote:
> David Brooks wrote:
>> On 19/06/2021 21:42, David Brooks wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2021 17:15, Michael Trew wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/2021 9:48 AM, David Brooks wrote:
>>>>> Much easier if you were to simply give your opinion on ClamXav
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of it... I used to work for Apple Care tech 
>>>> support, and we recommend everyone install a free program, now 
>>>> called MalwareBytes for Mac.
>>>
>>> Thank you, Michael. Apple Support have often mentioned to me the 
>>> advantages of running the 'free' version of Malwarebytes for Apple.
>>>
>>> It's available here:  https://www.malwarebytes.com/mac
>>>
>>> Its use is often recommended on the Apple Support Communities (ASC) 
>>> forums. So, too, was ClamXav during the years I was monitoring the 
>>> forums. No other AV/AM software programmes have ever been recommended 
>>> to the best of my knowledge, but that's where I saw it being 'promoted'.
>>>
>>> The developer of Adware Medic, Thomas Reed, was a prolific poster on 
>>> the ASC forums https://www.thesafemac.com/about/
>>>
>>> Not once, though, have I seen a post on the ASC written by Mark 
>>> Allan, the developer of ClamXav. 
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/company/canimaan-software-ltd/  Perhaps he 
>>> posted under a pseudonym.
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?currentCompany=%5B%2221434422%22%5D&origin=COMPANY_PAGE_CANNED_SEARCH 
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a (dreadful) Facebook page too, here:- 
>>> https://www.facebook.com/clamxav
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> Has /anyone/ reading here any personal experience of using the ClamXav 
>> software?
>>
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> Newsgroup list has six Windows groups in it. Check.
> 
> Drift subtopic wants to discuss a weak AV product for Macintosh 
> computers. Check.
> 
> When there are at least eight entries in Virustotal that need discussion.
> 
> OK, then. Did the Canimaan dude ban you from some forum ???
> 
> Seems the most logical explanation.
> 
> If this query had been placed in comp.sys.mac.misc, I bet
> it would have been ignored.

Agreed. :-(

> Believe it or not, the other AV scanners in an ecosystem,
> the staff do have to be paying attention to what each
> other are doing. There will be "cloud submissions" if
> a jiggler is set off by the product in question. And the other
> AV products will not make an exception for the product, without
> checking the behavior first. That does not mean that every
> obscure product on the face of the earth gets tested. But
> it does mean, that AV staff somewhere, have had to look at
> it, and carve out an exception for it so it does not get
> quarantined.
> 
> Just like Microsoft at some point, I believe they
> notched out the Ask Toolbar :-) Even clever lawyerly
> things, that skate on a knifes edge, occasionally get
> steamrolled.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ask-toolbar-considered-high-threat-malware-by-microsoft-1.3111321 
> 
> 
> The good ole days. Internet Explorer loaded to the scuppers with toolbars.
> 
> https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H0ZDGGvQFBw/UrOC-U_rbkI/AAAAAAAAAKw/Bio4vaPvNoQ/s400/2651970411_b210f8f3ac.jpg 


Hi Paul

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

This thread might help you to understand my concerns:-

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/all/ramnit-trojan-on-imac-aol-disk-from-2008-false/e18cc0a4-5895-412e-9306-e565d2571849

I had bought and paid for the ClamXav software because I was suspicious 
of its method of marketing. I was generally unhappy with answers 
provided by Mark Allan on the ‘help’ desk and his unwillingness to use 
his ClamXav Facebook page in what I consider a satisfactory manner. Even 
now there are only 373 people who ‘like’ the product!

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Mark Allan will not discuss my concerns with me directly or on the 
product support page https://www.clamxav.com/support/ and has also 
blocked me from Facebook and LinkedIn. He took such action only when I 
told him that, partially in memory of my deceased son (a guru at ICL) I 
was hunting for ‘bad guys’ on the Internet. What I’m after, here, is 
evidence. I’d like someone to check and prove my fears groundless!

Not an easy thing to achieve.

David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1011 — Re: Subthread ended (Was -[ Preview ] { Unofficial } Windows 11.1)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 18:33:46 +0100, David Brooks
<DavidB@nomail.invalid> wrote:

>Hi Paul
>
>Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

	He wrote "SUBTHREAD ENDED". then politely explained why you
shouldn't be multi-cross-posting in OT groups. A lesser person would
have told you to fsck off.
	How drunk are you?

<OT bot-feeding, STALKING and SLIMING snipped>

------------------------------------
	BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
	I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":

	<https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php>

	87 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
	Google "David Brooks Devon"
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1008

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 21:42:18 +0100, David Brooks
<DavidB@nomail.invalid> wrote:

>Thank you, Michael. Apple Support have often mentioned to me the 
>advantages of running the 'free' version of Malwarebytes for Apple.

	You DO realize you're cross-posting to WINDOWS groups?
	Oh! Drunk *AGAIN*?
	Still does not explain your behavior.
	Just say sorry and go to bed.

------------------------------------
	BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
	I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":

	<https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php>

	87 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
	Google "David Brooks Devon"
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#978

nospam graced us with on 6/18/2021 12:34 PM:
> In article <saipf7$lm9$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
> <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>>>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>>>>> supports the 'new' windows.
>>>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
>>>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
>>>> changes. What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>>> apple doesn't disallow non-store software and has stated on many
>>> occasions that they aren't going to do that. 
>>>
>>> on the other hand, microsoft tried that with windows 10s, but had to
>>> backpedal and call it a 'mode' of win10.
>> REF: 
>>
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destroy-s
>> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
>> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
>> and privacy of iOS.
>> \" /]
> 
> that's for the iphone/ipad, not the mac.
> 
> the mac has always been able to run anything the user wants. recent
> versions of mac os will require the user to confirm unsigned apps and
> accept the risks, but that does not stop the user from running them if
> that's what they really want to do.
> 
Yes, as I mentioned above. As hard as it is to believe, Apple has 
treated it MacOS system side of the business like a red-headed stepchild 
once walled-garden iOS devices became their most profitable device offering.

> mobile devices, both ios and android, limit what can be run because of
> the security risks.
> 
That is "A" reason but not the entire reason.

> for android, it's easy to allow apps outside of the play store. for ios
> devices, it's a little more involved, but not impossible. 
> 
> app developers *must* be able to run their own apps, long before
> they're ever in the store, so there will *always* be a way to do it. 
> 
Yes, I agree. However, that doesn't mean that Big Tech will afford a 
means for them to monetize it outside their app stores. For example, 
they could decide to allow it only on "enterprise" and/or "Ultimate" 
versions of the OS, pretty much eliminating most market penetration by 
3rd-party devs.

> unfortunately, we live in a world where running questionable software
> is risky. the carefree days are long gone.

That world is equally risky running supposedly non-risky software.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#979

In article <saj0qu$jg$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> >>>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
> >>>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
> >>>>> supports the 'new' windows.
> >>>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
> >>>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
> >>>> changes. What I suspect is that they will make significant 
> >>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
> >>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
> >>> apple doesn't disallow non-store software and has stated on many
> >>> occasions that they aren't going to do that. 
> >>>
> >>> on the other hand, microsoft tried that with windows 10s, but had to
> >>> backpedal and call it a 'mode' of win10.
> >> REF: 
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destro
> >> y-s
> >> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
> >>
> >> [excerpt quote=\"
> >> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
> >> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
> >> and privacy of iOS.
> >> \" /]
> > 
> > that's for the iphone/ipad, not the mac.
> > 
> > the mac has always been able to run anything the user wants. recent
> > versions of mac os will require the user to confirm unsigned apps and
> > accept the risks, but that does not stop the user from running them if
> > that's what they really want to do.
> > 
> Yes, as I mentioned above. As hard as it is to believe, Apple has 
> treated it MacOS system side of the business like a red-headed stepchild 
> once walled-garden iOS devices became their most profitable device offering.

it's true that ios is the majority of their revenue, however, it's a
myth that apple has ignored the mac or treated it as second rate
citizen. in fact, mac sales have been increasing by quite a bit,
especially over the last year. 

> > mobile devices, both ios and android, limit what can be run because of
> > the security risks.
> > 
> That is "A" reason but not the entire reason.

it is the most significant reason.

> > for android, it's easy to allow apps outside of the play store. for ios
> > devices, it's a little more involved, but not impossible. 
> > 
> > app developers *must* be able to run their own apps, long before
> > they're ever in the store, so there will *always* be a way to do it. 
> > 
> Yes, I agree. However, that doesn't mean that Big Tech will afford a 
> means for them to monetize it outside their app stores. For example, 
> they could decide to allow it only on "enterprise" and/or "Ultimate" 
> versions of the OS, pretty much eliminating most market penetration by 
> 3rd-party devs.

monetization is not the issue.

both ios and android offer enterprise distribution for companies who
write their own apps for internal use, which never see their respective
app stores.

enterprise distribution is actually one of the easiest and supported
ways non-store apps can be run on ios, but it's not the only way.

> > unfortunately, we live in a world where running questionable software
> > is risky. the carefree days are long gone.
> 
> That world is equally risky running supposedly non-risky software.

nothing is 100% safe, but the risks from running an app from a well
established developer who code-signed their app is *much* less than a
non-signed app from some random website, from a developer who has no
other products, using a domain that was registered last week...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#980

nospam graced us with on 6/18/2021 2:16 PM:
> In article <saj0qu$jg$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
> <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>>>>>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>>>>>>> supports the 'new' windows.
>>>>>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
>>>>>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
>>>>>> changes. What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>>>>> apple doesn't disallow non-store software and has stated on many
>>>>> occasions that they aren't going to do that. 
>>>>>
>>>>> on the other hand, microsoft tried that with windows 10s, but had to
>>>>> backpedal and call it a 'mode' of win10.
>>>> REF: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destro
>>>> y-s
>>>> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
>>>>
>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
>>>> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
>>>> and privacy of iOS.
>>>> \" /]
>>> that's for the iphone/ipad, not the mac.
>>>
>>> the mac has always been able to run anything the user wants. recent
>>> versions of mac os will require the user to confirm unsigned apps and
>>> accept the risks, but that does not stop the user from running them if
>>> that's what they really want to do.
>>>
>> Yes, as I mentioned above. As hard as it is to believe, Apple has 
>> treated it MacOS system side of the business like a red-headed stepchild 
>> once walled-garden iOS devices became their most profitable device offering.
> 
> it's true that ios is the majority of their revenue, however, it's a
> myth that apple has ignored the mac or treated it as second rate
> citizen. in fact, mac sales have been increasing by quite a bit,
> especially over the last year. 
> 
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've read too many credible 
past Mac-aligned articles where there has been lots of disappointment 
from the MacOS folks based on lackluster hardware and "meh" software 
updates.

>>> mobile devices, both ios and android, limit what can be run because of
>>> the security risks.
>>>
>> That is "A" reason but not the entire reason.
> 
> it is the most significant reason.
> 
Agree to disagree.

>>> for android, it's easy to allow apps outside of the play store. for ios
>>> devices, it's a little more involved, but not impossible. 
>>>
>>> app developers *must* be able to run their own apps, long before
>>> they're ever in the store, so there will *always* be a way to do it. 
>>>
>> Yes, I agree. However, that doesn't mean that Big Tech will afford a 
>> means for them to monetize it outside their app stores. For example, 
>> they could decide to allow it only on "enterprise" and/or "Ultimate" 
>> versions of the OS, pretty much eliminating most market penetration by 
>> 3rd-party devs.
> 
> monetization is not the issue.
> 
> both ios and android offer enterprise distribution for companies who
> write their own apps for internal use, which never see their respective
> app stores.
> 
> enterprise distribution is actually one of the easiest and supported
> ways non-store apps can be run on ios, but it's not the only way.
> 
My point above already ceded that point. But again, Microsoft allows it 
because enterprise account provides them lost of revenue, including 
hefty annual maintenace agreements.

>>> unfortunately, we live in a world where running questionable software
>>> is risky. the carefree days are long gone.
>> That world is equally risky running supposedly non-risky software.
> 
> nothing is 100% safe, but the risks from running an app from a well
> established developer who code-signed their app is *much* less than a
> non-signed app from some random website, from a developer who has no
> other products, using a domain that was registered last week...

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. We've already established that Microsoft 
systems (73+% market share) allow for non-store programs to run on their 
systems and I've not read of any major influx of malware coming from 
them. Most of it comes from *UX server systems.

Anyway, We may be able to find out soon if the Supremes rule against 
them in the Epic vs. Apple lawsuit.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#983

Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> nospam graced us with on 6/18/2021 2:16 PM:
>> In article <saj0qu$jg$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
>> <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>>>>>>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>>>>>>>> supports the 'new' windows.
>>>>>>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
>>>>>>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
>>>>>>> changes. What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>>>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>>>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>>>>>> apple doesn't disallow non-store software and has stated on many
>>>>>> occasions that they aren't going to do that. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> on the other hand, microsoft tried that with windows 10s, but had to
>>>>>> backpedal and call it a 'mode' of win10.
>>>>> REF: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destro
>>>>> y-s
>>>>> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
>>>>> 
>>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>>> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
>>>>> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
>>>>> and privacy of iOS.
>>>>> \" /]
>>>> that's for the iphone/ipad, not the mac.
>>>> 
>>>> the mac has always been able to run anything the user wants. recent
>>>> versions of mac os will require the user to confirm unsigned apps and
>>>> accept the risks, but that does not stop the user from running them if
>>>> that's what they really want to do.
>>>> 
>>> Yes, as I mentioned above. As hard as it is to believe, Apple has 
>>> treated it MacOS system side of the business like a red-headed stepchild 
>>> once walled-garden iOS devices became their most profitable device offering.
>> 
>> it's true that ios is the majority of their revenue, however, it's a
>> myth that apple has ignored the mac or treated it as second rate
>> citizen. in fact, mac sales have been increasing by quite a bit,
>> especially over the last year. 
>> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've read too many credible 
> past Mac-aligned articles where there has been lots of disappointment 
> from the MacOS folks based on lackluster hardware and "meh" software 
> updates.

You must have missed the Apple Silicon updates then. The new processors are
an order of magnitude faster than previous generation intels with lower
battery requirements. And apart from the butterfly keyboard the hardware
has always been great. Apple has driven the improvement in Windows laptop
quality. For a while MacBooks were the best Windows laptops. 

The software updates are "meh" mostly because Apple doesn't fuck around
with stupid tiles or horrible UI changes. It's all relatively small
increments along a very mature and stable path. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#988

Chris graced us with on 6/19/2021 5:27 AM:
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>> nospam graced us with on 6/18/2021 2:16 PM:
>>> In article <saj0qu$jg$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
>>> <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>>>>>>>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>>>>>>>>> supports the 'new' windows.
>>>>>>>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
>>>>>>>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
>>>>>>>> changes. What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>>>>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>>>>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>>>>>>> apple doesn't disallow non-store software and has stated on many
>>>>>>> occasions that they aren't going to do that. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on the other hand, microsoft tried that with windows 10s, but had to
>>>>>>> backpedal and call it a 'mode' of win10.
>>>>>> REF: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destro
>>>>>> y-s
>>>>>> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>>>> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
>>>>>> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
>>>>>> and privacy of iOS.
>>>>>> \" /]
>>>>> that's for the iphone/ipad, not the mac.
>>>>>
>>>>> the mac has always been able to run anything the user wants. recent
>>>>> versions of mac os will require the user to confirm unsigned apps and
>>>>> accept the risks, but that does not stop the user from running them if
>>>>> that's what they really want to do.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, as I mentioned above. As hard as it is to believe, Apple has 
>>>> treated it MacOS system side of the business like a red-headed stepchild 
>>>> once walled-garden iOS devices became their most profitable device offering.
>>> it's true that ios is the majority of their revenue, however, it's a
>>> myth that apple has ignored the mac or treated it as second rate
>>> citizen. in fact, mac sales have been increasing by quite a bit,
>>> especially over the last year. 
>>>
>> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've read too many credible 
>> past Mac-aligned articles where there has been lots of disappointment 
>> from the MacOS folks based on lackluster hardware and "meh" software 
>> updates.
> 
> You must have missed the Apple Silicon updates then. The new processors are
> an order of magnitude faster than previous generation intels with lower
> battery requirements. And apart from the butterfly keyboard the hardware
> has always been great. Apple has driven the improvement in Windows laptop
> quality. For a while MacBooks were the best Windows laptops. 
> 
> The software updates are "meh" mostly because Apple doesn't fuck around
> with stupid tiles or horrible UI changes. It's all relatively small
> increments along a very mature and stable path. 
> 
Actually, I had read that Apple had finally decided to pay more 
attention to its Mac line but that doesn't negate what I said about what 
that had done in the past and the effect it had on its iMac fanbois at 
the time.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#984

In article <saj8mi$67m$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:


> Anyway, We may be able to find out soon if the Supremes rule against 
> them in the Epic vs. Apple lawsuit.

epic's lawsuit is in district court, not the supreme court, and it's
not particularly strong, but what matters is what the judge decides,
not what the court of public opinion thinks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#989

nospam graced us with on 6/19/2021 6:03 AM:
> In article <saj8mi$67m$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
> <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, We may be able to find out soon if the Supremes rule against 
>> them in the Epic vs. Apple lawsuit.
> 
> epic's lawsuit is in district court, not the supreme court, and it's
> not particularly strong, but what matters is what the judge decides,
> not what the court of public opinion thinks.

Considering what's at stake, my guess is it won't stop at district, no 
matter the decision.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#991

In article <sakv05$cmi$2@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> >> Anyway, We may be able to find out soon if the Supremes rule against 
> >> them in the Epic vs. Apple lawsuit.
> > 
> > epic's lawsuit is in district court, not the supreme court, and it's
> > not particularly strong, but what matters is what the judge decides,
> > not what the court of public opinion thinks.
> 
> Considering what's at stake, my guess is it won't stop at district, no 
> matter the decision.

maybe. i don't think the supreme court will take the case, but if they
did, it's not going to be heard and certainly not decided any time
soon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#982

Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> Chris graced us with on 6/18/2021 5:57 AM:
>> On 17/06/2021 19:04, Sailfish wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens graced us with on 6/16/2021 5:04 PM:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:30:00 +0000, ? Good Guy ?
>>>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Is that all? Who thinks that's worth waiting for?
>>> 
>>> So far, it appears to be mostly the GUI, with the underlying 
>>> apps/programs/control panel applets/ &c still being an unglodly mix of 
>>> Win10+Win8+Win7, ..., XP
>> 
>> Did you expect anything else?
>> 
>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>> supports the 'new' windows.
> 
> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
> changes. 

What foundational changes would you like?

> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.

Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 

There's no doubt that the app stores are a great way for
google/apple/microsoft to make money, but there are often alternatives. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#990

Chris graced us with on 6/19/2021 3:57 AM:
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>> Chris graced us with on 6/18/2021 5:57 AM:
>>> On 17/06/2021 19:04, Sailfish wrote:
>>>> Eric Stevens graced us with on 6/16/2021 5:04 PM:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:30:00 +0000, ? Good Guy ?
>>>>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that all? Who thinks that's worth waiting for?
>>>> So far, it appears to be mostly the GUI, with the underlying 
>>>> apps/programs/control panel applets/ &c still being an unglodly mix of 
>>>> Win10+Win8+Win7, ..., XP
>>> Did you expect anything else?
>>>
>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>>> supports the 'new' windows.
>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
>> changes. 
> 
> What foundational changes would you like?
> 
Well, I'll consider wishes are like fishes and dare to hope.

1. Bring back Aero, in all it's previous glory (transparency, 
skeuomorphic icons, rounded windows corners, transparency, &c.) I don't 
mind if they farm it out, as long as they open the architecture APIs 
that would allow 3rd parties to replicate it fully.

2. Make changes that would allow Win7 users and 3rd party developers to 
create apps for its 30% cut store AND create the same programs access to 
the APIs neccessary to allow them to be sold without going through the 
30% Microsoft tax.

3. Provide less obscure access for power users rather than obfuscating 
them as they now do on Win10.

There are others but this would be enough for me to seriously consider 
upgrading.

>> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
> 
> Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
> 
Yes, they have with iOS devices.

> There's no doubt that the app stores are a great way for
> google/apple/microsoft to make money, but there are often alternatives. 
> 
Often not. Ever found a browser option that isn't based on webkit? Or 
are you hinting at *Nix solutions? Even Microsoft has given up the ghost 
with trident and gone with webkit for Edge.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#992

In article <sal01o$mnh$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> >>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
> >>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
> >>> supports the 'new' windows.
> >> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
> >> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
> >> changes. 
> > 
> > What foundational changes would you like?
> > 
> Well, I'll consider wishes are like fishes and dare to hope.
> 
> 1. Bring back Aero, in all it's previous glory (transparency, 
> skeuomorphic icons, rounded windows corners, transparency, &c.) I don't 
> mind if they farm it out, as long as they open the architecture APIs 
> that would allow 3rd parties to replicate it fully.

that's not really foundational, and the rounded corners are rumoured to
be in win11.

> 2. Make changes that would allow Win7 users and 3rd party developers to 
> create apps for its 30% cut store AND create the same programs access to 
> the APIs neccessary to allow them to be sold without going through the 
> 30% Microsoft tax.

that exists now, and it's not a tax either. there's significant benefit
from the 30% cut.

> 3. Provide less obscure access for power users rather than obfuscating 
> them as they now do on Win10.

power users don't care if a setting is obscured. 
 
> There are others but this would be enough for me to seriously consider 
> upgrading.
> 
> >> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
> >> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
> >> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
> > 
> > Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
> > 
> Yes, they have with iOS devices.

no they haven't.

> > There's no doubt that the app stores are a great way for
> > google/apple/microsoft to make money, but there are often alternatives. 
> > 
> Often not. Ever found a browser option that isn't based on webkit?

firefox

> Or 
> are you hinting at *Nix solutions? Even Microsoft has given up the ghost 
> with trident and gone with webkit for Edge.

what's wrong with webkit? 

there's also a difference between webkit itself and google's fork, aka
blink.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#993

nospam graced us with on 6/19/2021 8:06 AM:
>>> What foundational changes would you like?
>>>
>> Well, I'll consider wishes are like fishes and dare to hope.
>>
>> 1. Bring back Aero, in all it's previous glory (transparency, 
>> skeuomorphic icons, rounded windows corners, transparency, &c.) I don't 
>> mind if they farm it out, as long as they open the architecture APIs 
>> that would allow 3rd parties to replicate it fully.
> 
> that's not really foundational, and the rounded corners are rumoured to
> be in win11.
> 
Agree to disagree. It was the desktop after all.

>> 2. Make changes that would allow Win7 users and 3rd party developers to 
>> create apps for its 30% cut store AND create the same programs access to 
>> the APIs neccessary to allow them to be sold without going through the 
>> 30% Microsoft tax.
> 
> that exists now, and it's not a tax either. there's significant benefit
> from the 30% cut.
> 
Now, yes. Win 11whatever, who knows.

>> 3. Provide less obscure access for power users rather than obfuscating 
>> them as they now do on Win10.
> 
> power users don't care if a setting is obscured. 
>
Agree to disagree. It's a hassle to go through many steps now where only 
a few were needed prior.

>> There are others but this would be enough for me to seriously consider 
>> upgrading.
>>
>>>> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>>> Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
>>>
>> Yes, they have with iOS devices.
> 
> no they haven't.
> 
le sigh:
REF: 
https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destroy-security-and-privacy-of-ios/

[excerpt quote=\"
Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
and privacy of iOS.
\" /]
> 
> what's wrong with webkit? 
> 
Other than the anti-competitive aspect of forcing all browser developers 
to use their competitor's web access engine? Do I really need to spell 
it out; especially considering the privacy history associated with both 
those companies.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#996

In article <sal413$i4f$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:


> >> 3. Provide less obscure access for power users rather than obfuscating 
> >> them as they now do on Win10.
> > 
> > power users don't care if a setting is obscured. 
> >
> Agree to disagree. It's a hassle to go through many steps now where only 
> a few were needed prior.

it's a one time change.

there are also third party tools to simplify tweaking hidden settings
and have been forever.

> >> There are others but this would be enough for me to seriously consider 
> >> upgrading.
> >>
> >>>> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
> >>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
> >>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
> >>> Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
> >>>
> >> Yes, they have with iOS devices.
> > 
> > no they haven't.
> > 
> le sigh:
> REF: 
>
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destroy-s
> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
> 
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
> and privacy of iOS.
> \" /]

once again, you don't understand the context.

> > what's wrong with webkit? 
> > 
> Other than the anti-competitive aspect of forcing all browser developers 
> to use their competitor's web access engine? Do I really need to spell 
> it out; especially considering the privacy history associated with both 
> those companies.

nobody is forcing anyone, and the privacy issues are outside of webkit
anyway.

webkit is open source, add/remove whatever you want.

webkit is also very good, which is why so many companies use it.

nothing prevents writing something else, which microsoft tried and
failed. 

there are chromium-based browsers (aka blink, a webkit fork) with the
google-bits stripped out, for example.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#999

nospam graced us with on 6/19/2021 11:22 AM:
>> Agree to disagree. It's a hassle to go through many steps now where only 
>> a few were needed prior.
> 
> it's a one time change.
> 
> there are also third party tools to simplify tweaking hidden settings
> and have been forever.
> 
Just to remind you, you entreated me as to what I would like. I replied. 
  Obviously, you disagree. Whatever.
>>>> There are others but this would be enough for me to seriously consider 
>>>> upgrading.
>>>>
>>>>>> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>>>>> Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, they have with iOS devices.
>>> no they haven't.
>>>
>> le sigh:
>> REF: 
>>
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destroy-s
>> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
>> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
>> and privacy of iOS.
>> \" /]
> 
> once again, you don't understand the context.
> 
And, oddly, you refused to refute my legitimate response with 
clarification. Instead, simply skirting away.
> 
> nobody is forcing anyone, and the privacy issues are outside of webkit
> anyway.
> 
Wrong. If they disallow direct web access, they are forcing anyone and 
everyone. Also, they who control the data that is being transfered on 
the web control the competition. Do you think the developers of Brave or 
  Firefox or even Edge wouldn't prefer to use a fork of the same webkit 
for their browsers?

> webkit is open source, add/remove whatever you want.
> 
Not on iOS it isn't.
REF: 
https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-launched-a-new-android-app-to-lure-users-from-chrome/

[excerpt quote=\"
Apple’s closed ecosystem requires that all browsers, including Chrome, 
use WebKit as their underlying engines.
\" /]

> webkit is also very good, which is why so many companies use it.
> 
It is very good and the main reason Google fork'd it for their use. 
Mainly so they could move Blink in a more competitive way to meet their 
needs.

Of course, they could do that since, well, they also created their own 
smartphone by reverse-engineering Apple's Java modules but keeping 
compatibility the modules argument lists.

The simple fact is that Apple AND Alphabet have an iron-fist hold on the 
competition with their stores, guaranteeing that they'll always get 30% 
of every sale. This is obviously detrimental to consumers since the 
competitors will simply pass most of that 30% tax onto the hapless 
consumers.

> nothing prevents writing something else, which microsoft tried and
> failed. 
> 
Yes, there is. Microsoft failed for a number of reasons, not the least 
being their fumbling attempts at Win8 and Windows Phone which almost 
completely eroded their trustworthiness to consumers but, more 
importantly, to their enterprise accounts.

They won't enter those waters again anytime soon. However, they are 
wealthy enough that they can plan another line of attack at some point.

Most others aren't ... maybe Amazon, maybe Facebook???

> there are chromium-based browsers (aka blink, a webkit fork) with the
> google-bits stripped out, for example.

No one without an established platform would even bother. There will 
need to be a technology paradigm change. One that separates the service 
from the devices.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1014

In article <salgrf$bct$1@dont-email.me>, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:


> >>>>>> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
> >>>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall,
> >>>>>> just 
> >>>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
> >>>>> Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, they have with iOS devices.
> >>> no they haven't.
> >>>
> >> le sigh:
> >> REF: 
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destro
> >> y-s
> >> ecurity-and-privacy-of-ios/
> >>
> >> [excerpt quote=\"
> >> Tim Cook has claimed in an interview with Brut that if Apple was forced 
> >> to allow sideloading of apps, as Android does, it would destroy security 
> >> and privacy of iOS.
> >> \" /]
> > 
> > once again, you don't understand the context.
> > 
> And, oddly, you refused to refute my legitimate response with 
> clarification. Instead, simply skirting away.

i explained it already. you even mentioned enterprise distribution
before i did. there are also other options.

you're also ignoring that also in that interview, tim said that android
has 47 times as much malware as ios. while the exact amount is
debatable, it's clear that sideloading on ios would cause a drastic
increase in malware.

customers don't want malware.

> > nobody is forcing anyone, and the privacy issues are outside of webkit
> > anyway.
> > 
> Wrong. If they disallow direct web access, they are forcing anyone and 
> everyone. 

who is disallowing direct web access??

> Also, they who control the data that is being transfered on 
> the web control the competition.

who does that?

> Do you think the developers of Brave or 
>   Firefox or even Edge wouldn't prefer to use a fork of the same webkit 
> for their browsers?

brave and edge are chromium-based, aka blink, a fork of webkit.

firefox is gecko.

edge was originally trident, but microsoft quickly learned that writing
their own rendering engine was not worth the trouble, so they switched
to chromium. there's no reason to reinvent the wheel when there's a
very good wheel available for free.

> > webkit is open source, add/remove whatever you want.
> > 
> Not on iOS it isn't.

webkit is open source. full stop.

<https://webkit.org>
  A fast, open source web browser engine

> REF: 
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-launched-a-new-android-app-to-lure-users-f
> rom-chrome/
> 
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Apple¹s closed ecosystem requires that all browsers, including Chrome, 
> use WebKit as their underlying engines.
> \" /]

that's about ios, not webkit.

what you're ignoring is that ios has *significantly* less malware than
android. this is a good thing.

ios browsers are limited to webkit for security and performance
reasons. not only is apple's webkit more secure, but it is also highly
optimized for their own hardware.

other rendering engines would be slower, less secure and drain the
battery more rapidly. customers don't find that to be a benefit.

> > webkit is also very good, which is why so many companies use it.
> > 
> It is very good and the main reason Google fork'd it for their use. 
> Mainly so they could move Blink in a more competitive way to meet their 
> needs.

yep.

> Of course, they could do that since, well, they also created their own 
> smartphone by reverse-engineering Apple's Java modules but keeping 
> compatibility the modules argument lists.

the iphone doesn't have any java modules.

ios is fully native. it's os x running on a pocket-size device.

android uses a virtual machine (dalvik, now art) with apps originally
written in java, now mostly kotlin.

> The simple fact is that Apple AND Alphabet have an iron-fist hold on the 
> competition with their stores, guaranteeing that they'll always get 30% 
> of every sale. This is obviously detrimental to consumers since the 
> competitors will simply pass most of that 30% tax onto the hapless 
> consumers.

it's not a tax, no matter how many times you claim it is, nor is it an
iron-fist hold. 

there is a significant benefit to developers for the 30% cut, including
internet hosting, download bandwidth, discoverability, payment
processing, local and international taxes, currency conversions,
handling fraud and chargeback, accounting and quite a bit more.

for an indie developer to do all of that on their own, it would cost
much more than 30% of their revenue. web hosting and credit card fees
are not free. creating a good web site is very much not free. 

when software was sold in computer stores, the cut was 50-70%. this is
*less*. much less. 

end users are also *far* more likely to buy an app from a microsoft,
apple or google store than some random website, where they have to
enter in their payment information (additional hassle) and hope it
isn't just collecting card numbers (legitimate fear). there are also
gift cards for those who don't want to use a credit card or don't have
one at all, which are also great for kids.

> > nothing prevents writing something else, which microsoft tried and
> > failed. 
> > 
> Yes, there is. Microsoft failed for a number of reasons, not the least 
> being their fumbling attempts at Win8 and Windows Phone which almost 
> completely eroded their trustworthiness to consumers but, more 
> importantly, to their enterprise accounts.

that had nothing to do with edge failing.

windows phone was too little, too late, along with orphaning windows
mobile 6 users and developers and then again with windows phone 7. it
offered no benefit over ios or android, so it fizzled and failed.

> They won't enter those waters again anytime soon. However, they are 
> wealthy enough that they can plan another line of attack at some point.
> 
> Most others aren't ... maybe Amazon, maybe Facebook???

both of those companies tried releasing a smartphone and both of those
failed *hard*. 

facebook is supposedly coming out with a smartwatch next year, and
based on rumours so far, is another guaranteed fail.

on the other hand, alexa devices are quite popular.

> > there are chromium-based browsers (aka blink, a webkit fork) with the
> > google-bits stripped out, for example.
> 
> No one without an established platform would even bother. There will 
> need to be a technology paradigm change. One that separates the service 
> from the devices.

what service?

quite a few companies have released their own chromium-based browsers,
some of which are very good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1001

Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> Chris graced us with on 6/19/2021 3:57 AM:
>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>> Chris graced us with on 6/18/2021 5:57 AM:
>>>> On 17/06/2021 19:04, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>> Eric Stevens graced us with on 6/16/2021 5:04 PM:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:30:00 +0000, ? Good Guy ?
>>>>>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is that all? Who thinks that's worth waiting for?
>>>>> So far, it appears to be mostly the GUI, with the underlying 
>>>>> apps/programs/control panel applets/ &c still being an unglodly mix of 
>>>>> Win10+Win8+Win7, ..., XP
>>>> Did you expect anything else?
>>>> 
>>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>>>> supports the 'new' windows.
>>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
>>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
>>> changes. 
>> 
>> What foundational changes would you like?
>> 
> Well, I'll consider wishes are like fishes and dare to hope.
> 
> 1. Bring back Aero, in all it's previous glory (transparency, 
> skeuomorphic icons, rounded windows corners, transparency, &c.) I don't 
> mind if they farm it out, as long as they open the architecture APIs 
> that would allow 3rd parties to replicate it fully.
> 
> 2. Make changes that would allow Win7 users and 3rd party developers to 
> create apps for its 30% cut store AND create the same programs access to 
> the APIs neccessary to allow them to be sold without going through the 
> 30% Microsoft tax.
> 
> 3. Provide less obscure access for power users rather than obfuscating 
> them as they now do on Win10.
> 
> There are others but this would be enough for me to seriously consider 
> upgrading.
> 
>>> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>> 
>> Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
>> 
> Yes, they have with iOS devices.

This is a windows discussion so why are bringing in a mobile OS? 

macOS has no pay wall for software. 

>> There's no doubt that the app stores are a great way for
>> google/apple/microsoft to make money, but there are often alternatives. 
>> 
> Often not. Ever found a browser option that isn't based on webkit? 

What's that got to do with app stores? But anyway I use firefox. It uses
gecko. 

> Or 
> are you hinting at *Nix solutions? Even Microsoft has given up the ghost 
> with trident and gone with webkit for Edge.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1002

Chris graced us with on 6/19/2021 1:09 PM:
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>> Chris graced us with on 6/19/2021 3:57 AM:
>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris graced us with on 6/18/2021 5:57 AM:
>>>>> On 17/06/2021 19:04, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>> Eric Stevens graced us with on 6/16/2021 5:04 PM:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:30:00 +0000, ? Good Guy ?
>>>>>>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that all? Who thinks that's worth waiting for?
>>>>>> So far, it appears to be mostly the GUI, with the underlying 
>>>>>> apps/programs/control panel applets/ &c still being an unglodly mix of 
>>>>>> Win10+Win8+Win7, ..., XP
>>>>> Did you expect anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since Windows 7. It's all just a 
>>>>> skinning exercise so that the vendors can sell more hardware which 
>>>>> supports the 'new' windows.
>>>> Actually, yes, and it still might happen since this is an early look-see 
>>>> at just the current GUI update direction and not the foundational 
>>>> changes. 
>>> What foundational changes would you like?
>>>
>> Well, I'll consider wishes are like fishes and dare to hope.
>>
>> 1. Bring back Aero, in all it's previous glory (transparency, 
>> skeuomorphic icons, rounded windows corners, transparency, &c.) I don't 
>> mind if they farm it out, as long as they open the architecture APIs 
>> that would allow 3rd parties to replicate it fully.
>>
>> 2. Make changes that would allow Win7 users and 3rd party developers to 
>> create apps for its 30% cut store AND create the same programs access to 
>> the APIs neccessary to allow them to be sold without going through the 
>> 30% Microsoft tax.
>>
>> 3. Provide less obscure access for power users rather than obfuscating 
>> them as they now do on Win10.
>>
>> There are others but this would be enough for me to seriously consider 
>> upgrading.
>>
>>>> What I suspect is that they will make significant 
>>>> infrastructure changes that will put everything behind a pay wall, just 
>>>> like Apple, disallowing sideloading of non- Windows Store software.
>>> Apple haven't done anything like the sort. 
>>>
>> Yes, they have with iOS devices.
> 
> This is a windows discussion so why are bringing in a mobile OS? 
> 
Agreed.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.microsoft.windows

csiph-web