←back to thread

306 points dxs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.223s | source
Show context
forrestthewoods ◴[] No.44069936[source]
Over here in Windows land I can’t fathom why you need something like Flatpak just so users can reliably launch and run a program. I mean trust me I understand that Linux is so broken it needs something like flatpak. But imagine saying you’re disappointed the Windows executable format isn’t evolving! Running an exe shouldn’t require decades of maintenance. It shouldn’t be that complicated. It doesn’t have to be.
replies(7): >>44070461 #>>44070903 #>>44071181 #>>44071284 #>>44071949 #>>44072664 #>>44123625 #
plst ◴[] No.44071949[source]
> But imagine saying you’re disappointed the Windows executable format isn’t evolving!

I actually am disappointed about pretty much that. There is still no good permissions/sandboxing mechanism for PC operating systems like what's on smartphones. (to be clear I'm not calling for smartphone-like freedom restrictions on PCs, just more control over what applications can do)

That's one of the issues Flatpak tried to resolve on Linux. AFAIK Windows Store is an idea pretty similar to Flatpak (permissions, solving distribution problems...) but also no one uses it. So it's not like Microsoft doesn't want to evolve exe either.

replies(1): >>44075169 #
1. domga ◴[] No.44075169[source]
Microsoft definitely wants to evolve, from my understanding they are looking at trying to lure people to package their apps, and to present similar hurdles as on macOS if your app is unsigned.

But due to old apps which nobody will update to package, I assume a lot of users will just disable all sort of warnings.