Microsoft To Introduce a New Feature In Windows 10 Which Will Allow Users To Block Installation of Desktop Apps (mspoweruser.com) 307
Microsoft is planning to introduce a new feature to Windows 10 that will allow a user to prevent installation of desktop apps. The latest Windows Insider build comes with an option that allows users to enable app installations only from the Windows Store. From a report on MSPowerUser: Once enabled, users will see a warning whenever they try to install a Win32 app -- they will get a dialog saying apps from the Windows Store helps to keep their PC "safe and reliable." This feature is obviously disabled by default, but users can enable it really easily if they want.
Misread the headline... (Score:3, Funny)
At first, I misread the headline as "Windows 10 now allows you to block back-door installation"...
Re: (Score:2)
Hurr hurr hurr. The "I misread the headline as" post are always so clever and FUNNAY!!! HURR HURR DURR DURR!!
Why thank you, Anonymous Coward , my friends tell me I'm very witty!
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha ha ha ha, fuck off, asshole. For the record, a great many of us have been using Slashdot since year zero, before you. Yet we never felt the need to make a name for ourselves. You are a narcissistic asshole that only registered a username because you want some sense of self-gratification. Since registering a username does not require verifiable credentials and is open to everyone, that fact that you DID so means nothing. Really, truly, it means nothing. So, if you're unhappy about a response, attack the substance, not the sender.
Seek professional help.
"...disabled by default." (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... 'till the next update.
Re:"...disabled by default." (Score:5, Insightful)
Disabled by default, then enabled by default, then mandatory, then not able to be worked around. Give it time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"...disabled by default." (Score:5, Insightful)
We can hope, but I'm not counting on it. I think it's just as likely that by the time that happens, having the computer locked down so that only OS maker-"approved" apps can run might be mandated by law because "only hackers would run un-'approved' software" or some other such BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless they provide a way to build app store-enabled apps from an existing win32 code base. It's taken a while, but they've realized that win32 code is their biggest ace in the hole. They're even talking about providing an X86 emulator for ARM-based Windows systems, which I assume is for win32-based X86 code. So if that stuff can be installed and upgraded via the app store, fine. Otherwise, no dice.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. I see that they have come out with a way to deploy win32 code to the app store - how did I miss that one? Not that I plan to use it yet - my win32 code runs on anything from XP to WINE, and I don't want to mess with that. But still - nice to know that I could, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
There's WSL which can't be locked down if it's expected to do its job, and can run wine. Just have people migrate to that. Once we're there, shed the pointless outer layer and you don't need to worry about Microsoft lockdown anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Disabled by default, then enabled by default, then mandatory, then not able to be worked around. Give it time.
Windows dies when that happens.
You probably would have said the same thing before Windows 10 came along. You would have been wrong then, and you're probably wrong now.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 10 doesn't block you from installing desktop software, so I don't really see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft To Introduce a New Feature In Windows 10 Which Will Allow Users To Block Installation of Desktop Apps
Windows 10 doesn't block you from installing desktop software, so I don't really see your point.
It will.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using the future tense but this conversation is about the past tense:
before Windows 10 came along
Re: (Score:2)
If that happens (fat chance unless MS decides corporate suicide is a good plan) then Windows will be dead. Unlike many Linux fanatics like to claim there plenty of Windows software with no equivalent on other platforms (and not working in Wine), much of that is in daily use for real corporations making real money. But those are Win32 software - not metro (whatever) ones. So if MS would decide to stop supporting "desktop" programs they would alienate a huge portion of their commercial users and probably lead
Re: (Score:2)
But it does spy on the user and send all of that sellable data back to Microsoft with no way to disable it. Did you ever think that would happen? Just wait for it. Pretty soon the only applications you'll be able to install on Windows will come from the walled garden of the Microsoft Store. MS steals everything from Apple, the good and the bad.
M$ not eating own dogfood: no Visual Studio RT (Score:2)
In the later stages of that progression, how will testing applications in Visual Studio work?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll need a special license from the government - administered by Microsoft - to run dev tools and debuggers. See Stallman's essay from 20 years ago.
Referring to US only? (Score:2)
You'll need a special license from the government - administered by Microsoft - to run dev tools and debuggers.
From what government? For 95 percent of the world, Microsoft is foreign. Why would one country's government let a foreign corporation administer its developer licenses?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Microsoft is a master of bribing^Wlobbying. See Munich.
Re:"...disabled by default." (Score:5, Interesting)
The exact same thing was said when Apple introduced Gatekeeper in mac OS Mountain Lion four years ago. The default when Mountain Lion* shipped was to allow apps from the App Store or signed apps from other sources, and it's still the default today. The blanket option to allow all apps and go unprotected is now hidden, but it can be re-enabled from the command line. And you can still override Gatekeeper for individual apps from at least three different interfaces (attempt to launch the app, then open the App Store prefpane; right-click the app in Finder; use spctl from the command line). As far as I'm concerned, that's all as it should be. It's still possible for a user to selectively bypass Gatekeeper, but it's harder to do so accidentally or globally.
(*: The back-port to Lion allowed all apps by default as a concession to users of old hardware that were left behind when Mountain Lion dropped support for 32-bit EFI.)
That's no guarantee that Microsoft will be as wise as Apple has been. Instead of code signing, Microsoft is encouraging developers to wrap Win32 apps in UWP containers so they can be published from the Windows Store, so probably not as wise. Closed-source OS developers aren't idiots, though. Apple and Microsoft both know that the "default walled garden on desktop" button is wired to the self-destruct system.
Re: (Score:2)
That's no guarantee that Microsoft will be as wise as Apple has been. Instead of code signing, Microsoft is encouraging developers to wrap Win32 apps in UWP containers so they can be published from the Windows Store, so probably not as wise.
Mac: I download something and install it, and then have ZERO IDEA how to uninstall it. Deleting the icon out of "Application" is easy. But what about configuration files? Even homebrew doesn't solve that -- http://superuser.com/questions... [superuser.com]
Win32 apps in UWP containers: this "project centennial" approach virtualizes filesystem and registry for the app, so uninstallation will end up removing absolutely everything. I prefer this approach. (speaking as someone with OSX and who knows what leftovers on it...)
Re: (Score:2)
"...app installation only from the windows store..."
"Disabled by default, then enabled by default, then mandatory, then not able to be worked around. Give it time."
Keep your win7 install disk, ppl.
Re:"...disabled by default." (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, by default it restricts installation to the App Store and "Identified Developers" (e.g. established 3rd-party developers like Adobe). IIRC, you can also type in the admin account user/pass in the prompt to bypass it. Only the really out-there stuff requires going into System Preferences and explicitly allowing it.
That one TV-advertised product PC-Matic [pcmatic.com] mimics this behavior in Windows if memory serves, which makes me think that Microsoft just wants to bump that company off, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be fine with opt-out in the form of a one-click admin setting. The case for preventing malware is reasonable for the majority of users.
Just so long as it doesn't revert the decision I made. Ever.
Project Boil The Frogs (Score:3)
Project "Boil The Frogs" is picking up pace I see!
Its about taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft sells this as important step against bloatware/malware, but this coudn't be further from the truth. Windows 10 desktops come preloaded with bloatware, and often it re-installs itself after you have removed it. The real motivation for microsoft to do this is because the model of making a limited app store and then taxing every app a big amount (30% usually) has been very successful on the mobile market and they want this for windows too.
Also gets rid of Steam (Score:2)
No Win32 also means no Steam library, leveling the play field for Windows Store to deliver games without being able to install competing stores. How convenient!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if steam will ever be compatible with this or if there are complications, but they did ultimately allow win32 applications to be delivered via windows store.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the article, this isn't actually a Win32 block. It's a sideloading block. You could still install Win32 apps from the Windows Store.
Though I'm not sure whether a third-party app store like Steam would be allowed. But I don't see anything that would prevent you from temporarily disabling the block just to install Steam.
For now... (Score:2)
Sure, for now. All new APIs are being written specifically for UWP, and as Win32 will diverge further and further to the point where it will no longer be possible to backport patches and improvements to Win32. At that point it will be considered deprecated and unsupported, even prevented due to security liabilities. Likely only businesses will be able to license a Win32 VM for legacy applications.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody wants the store model, even on OS X where it arguably works better because of no pre-installed malware. The right thing, is a) to never let users run as admin, b) tar and feather apps that do not properly work without admin. Astroturf slashdot with developers who still haven't gotten the message, rather than try to convince us MS isn't evil anymore, which we'll never believe anyway.
There's no reason for 99% of apps out there to actually need administrator privileges, but for some reason, many still d
Per-user device drivers? (Score:2)
The right thing, is a) to never let users run as admin
Ransomware can do a lot of damage to the data in a user's account even without elevated privileges.
There's no reason for 99% of apps out there to actually need administrator privileges
Even to install? Or should operating systems allow per-user installation of device drivers in order to support applications that need a specific device driver? For example, iTunes installs an iPod/iPhone/iPad driver, and Fitbit Connect which installs a tracker receiver driver. Or do only 1 percent of applications need such a driver?
anit trust issues! (Score:2)
anit trust issues! with going app store only.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Think of it as lifelock for your computer. You can disable potentially unsafe program installs while it's enabled. If there's something you want to install that's not in the windows store(apps already vetted by MS), simply disable it!
Is this so hard to comprehend, people?
Re: (Score:2)
If there's something you want to install that's not in the windows store(apps already vetted by MS), simply disable it!
Provided you even can. The forthcoming Windows 10 Cloud Edition is rumored to ship with this feature forced on. Besides, let me know when even something like Visual Studio is available as a UWP application.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Apple and Google appear to be able to get away with it....
Apple not big enough; Google has Unknown sources (Score:2)
anit trust issues! with going app store only.
Yet Apple and Google appear to be able to get away with it....
I'm not entirely sure to which phenomenon you refer. True, Apple locks iOS devices down to use apps from the App Store, but Apple's market share is nowhere near large enough to have "market power" over smartphone apps. As for Google, except for about the first year of AT&T-branded Android devices, practically every Android device with Android Market (now Google Play Store) has offered a checkbox to let users choose to install applications from unknown sources. In fact, last time I checked, Google requir
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has always allowed you to disable it (in a very easy-to-find spot with admin credentials) in OSX/MacOS, and they've had it in place for like 17 years - and for the entire decade or so that the App Store has existed. Pretty sure that they're in no hurry to lock your laptop/desktop down to the App Store if they haven't done it by now.
Google is also perfectly okay with what they refer to as side-loading... and have allowed that with just an easy click or two since Android and ChromeOS have respectively e
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the cut of sales we're getting from our app store, this is for your saaaaafety! (as if you can have any safety with a Microsoft OS, after over two decades of experience otherwise)
The Apple equivalent doesn't require the app store, developers can still sign code with their key when selling other ways, including boxed retail.
Only Apple sells macOS code signing certificates (Score:2)
developers can still sign code with their key when selling other ways, including boxed retail.
Then how can a developer sign code when distributing software through non-commercial means, particularly free software? Though price competition has made the cost of a domain-validated TLS certificate trivial, with Let's Encrypt offering 90-day certificates to domain owners without charge and SSLs.com offering 3-year certificates for $5 per year, there's as of yet no counterpart to those for code signing on macOS or Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
there is Apple, Linux, BSDs, and Hurd.
By which you mean "there is Apple." Otherwise, which national brick-and-mortar chain in Slashdot's home country carries more than a token selection of laptops in its showrooms that are warranted to run anything but Windows, macOS, or an OS designed to run only web applications?
...disabled by default... until it's not (Score:5, Insightful)
This feature is obviously disabled by default, but users can enable it really easily if they want.
Until it's not. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft sets this by default to try and force users to buy apps from the Windows store.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's about safety and security of course.
Nothing at all to do with controlling distribution over the platform and taking a cut of all the revenue of every company publishing software on their platform.
It actually might not have been too bad, if they only had the repository system be extensible like yum and apt, which would allow competing application distribution platforms. But that would be too much for the user and not enough for Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of Windows systems are corporate workstations, which only need an office suite, PDF reader, and a few corporate-approved applications, typically pushed through SCCM (which I assume will be exempt from this feature).
I agree it could be awkward for home users, but I'll reserve my harsh judgement for when it actually becomes a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of Windows systems are corporate workstations, which only need an office suite, PDF reader, and a few corporate-approved applications, typically pushed through SCCM (which I assume will be exempt from this feature).
The problem is that this is true for most PCs, but not all. And it's the ones that need extra software that tend to be business critical.
Build a Linux box and use Wine if needed (Score:2)
Do these "business critical" computers happen to be laptops in odd form factors, which would rule out building your own desktop or using a System76 laptop? Or does the "extra software" require a device driver or have some other good reason not to run in Wine? If not, use GNU/Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
What about software that can't run in Wine? Or software that may (partially) run in Wine but isn't supported there? Are you so short-sighted and/or inexperienced that the fact there are many Windows-only solutions out there in use as a critical part of many businesses is news to you?
Seek competitors (Score:2)
What about software that can't run in Wine?
If a publisher refuses to add support for GNU/Linux, either natively or through Wine, a business relying on that publisher's proprietary software ought to plan a migration now to a different publisher that is willing.
Re: (Score:2)
Legacy systems is the bread and butter for many companies.
Often, there are no viable alternatives, and writing in-house replacement software is cost prohibitive.
Re: (Score:2)
In cases like those, would it be worthwhile to contribute developer time or money to the Wine project?
Don't get fooled again! (Score:2)
"NMeet the new boos same as the old boss."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Competent admins: Use proper tools to push applications across the domain, and leave the feature enabled so there's yet another hurdle between the malware-pushing support-call scammers and admin-level access to the system.
Unfortunately, it's no longer a safe assumption that even "sysadmins/developers" actually make an effective barrier against attacks. They get scammed just like everybody else, and are just as susceptible to a well-crafted phishing site or an urgent call from the CEO's new assistant.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great ideal, but it's not the way the real world works.
You can have great people trying to follow great policies... but mistakes happen, especially when it's a late night with an impending deadline (and yes, attackers know those deadlines) or a well-executed social engineering attack. It's not helpful to just say "you're an imposter" and dismiss the fact that the system allowed the attack to succeed.
Humans are fallible, even the "proper" ones. A poor craftsman always blames his tools, but a good cr
Re: (Score:2)
users: another screen, another popup, another warning. mash enter until the bad square goes bye bye.
Clearly, the solution here is to get MS to swap the enter and esc keys so that users can mash away and still be safe!
If I want to keep PC safe and reliable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
According to Secunia most vulnerabilities announced in 2016 were not Microsoft bugs, but 3rd party applications:
http://blogs.flexerasoftware.c... [flexerasoftware.com]
On Windows at least - putting your trust in Microsoft is probably more secure than 3rd party applications.
And before you mention Open Source - lest we forget the recently DDOS attacks performed by IOT botnet devices running open source OS's - in other words - security and trust is a huge problem we all need to deal with.
Bottom line - application signing, and only r
The writing is on the wall. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has already expressed a desire to kill Steam
I'm sure they aren't happy about "losing revenue" to Google Play or iTunes either
How long before some future update changes the default to enabled on all Windows systems?
Re: (Score:2)
You really think the people @ MS are so stupid that removing the big reason they're still #1 for mainstream OS solutions would seem reasonable? I think not however if that would happen anytime I'd switch to another platform in a second.
Microsoft want a piece of the pie (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft look enviously at Apple, who get to control and profit from their walled garden. Then they glance over at Android, and see Google has their play store (which, whereas it may not be a walled garden, has a fence around). Fire users most certainly have their own walled garden courtesy of Amazon.
Apple and Google are both benefiting from these "almost monopolies" they run controlling their users, skimming a bit off the top from everyone. No doubt, Microsoft sees that these are profitable ventures and they want the same control over what runs on Microsoft Windows. It's a little harder to do because there is a lot of legacy applications, and neither consumer, nor software producers want to give a little bit of each purchase to Microsoft. Microsoft are going to continue baby-stepping towards that goal though because they want the money, and their competitors are already doing that.
It will be a sad day when you have no option but to buy from the Microsoft store, but that day is coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft look enviously at Apple, who get to control and profit from their walled garden. Then they glance over at Android, and see Google has their play store (which, whereas it may not be a walled garden, has a fence around). Fire users most certainly have their own walled garden courtesy of Amazon.
Apple and Google are both benefiting from these "almost monopolies" they run controlling their users, skimming a bit off the top from everyone. No doubt, Microsoft sees that these are profitable ventures and they want the same control over what runs on Microsoft Windows. It's a little harder to do because there is a lot of legacy applications, and neither consumer, nor software producers want to give a little bit of each purchase to Microsoft. Microsoft are going to continue baby-stepping towards that goal though because they want the money, and their competitors are already doing that.
It will be a sad day when you have no option but to buy from the Microsoft store, but that day is coming.
It's already a sad day because most companies now seem interested only in skimming a little bit of someone elses' profit rather than making an actual product themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this exactly what Gaben said a couple years ago, which sparked the creation of SteamOS and SteamMachines?
Re: (Score:2)
The very idea that Microsoft would force users to install apps ONLY via the Windows store is on the same level of ridiculousness as the 9/11 attacks being an inside job.
It's the exact policy implemented on all Xbox consoles as well as Windows Phone devices.
yet another reason... (Score:2)
Yet another reason to not use Windows 10. Walled garden or prison---it's a slippery slope.
I want the opposite controls (Score:5, Insightful)
I want the ability to block the Windows Store from the users. Windows took that ability away from IT in Windows 10 Pro. Thanks, Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
That is ridiculous that they took away that ability. Looks like I'll soon be blocking things courtesy my fancy all-in-one-firewall-webblocker box at the gateway level.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't you use the hosts file?
I'm pretty sure I read that here.
Windows 10 LTSB (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still there... in the enterprise version
Which costs more, and there you have it, they get your money one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't help when there's a second resolver inside Windows Store and Windows Update that uses different DNS servers.
Remember Tim Sweeney? (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like he called it. [slashdot.org]
You mean the Windows Malware Store? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wasn't there are article about how the majority, I believe has high as 75% of the Windows Store apps were considered malware?
https://www.howtogeek.com/1949... [howtogeek.com]
I mean, sure they probably have improved their content since the days of this, but let us not forget how they let this slip not to long ago.
makes sense (Score:2)
It makes perfect sense to prohibit users from installing a program, especially ones that have not been signed, audited and vetted. This prohibition should be on by default but could be disabled from within the control panel only by an admin user, but this is enough of a deliberate action that this would foil a large number of accidentally opened email attachment trojans. The current security situation of making email attachments executable with a few clicks is dismal. The warning messages that currently dis
Re: (Score:2)
RBAC rules should be used to lock a user out from running any executable whatsoever from their home directory.
If that's on by default, then how will a high school student do his computer science 101 homework?
Re: (Score:2)
You log in as the admin user go into the control panel and disable it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you focus so much attention on young people? Is it that ASD thing were Autistic spectrum people often socialize with people younger than them?
Most high school students DON'T have comp sci 101 homework, and if they do, they probably do it via the web, not via a compiler/interpreter installed on their home machine.
And if they do need a compiler/interpreter that can be installed by the machine's admin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An option should be located in the control panel to disable the restriction, there is no doubt. I would never support the idea if that were not available
"feature" (Score:2)
now we have "alternative features"?
This feature is obviously disabled by default, (Score:2)
...until the first patch after any perceived fuss dies down....
Store Is Not a Feature in the Enteprise (Score:2)
One of the more compelling reasons to stick with Windows in the enterprise is that it is straightforward to author, update and deploy software without having to go through a third-party store approval process. If I need to get an update to accounting software that takes care of a sales tax issue, I want that update deployed now, and not wait days for somebody to review it and make sure it complies to whatever flavor-of-the-week UI conventions that a particular reviewer may or may not make an issue out of.
Steam (Score:3)
Microsoft has wanted a share of those game sales for a long time.
Games are the only reason Windows even exists in my household.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the malware account?
Re:The good old days (Score:4, Funny)
The point of failure of often at layer 8.
Found the LUDDITE! (Score:5, Funny)
Apps!
Re: Done with Windows (Score:2, Informative)
No, you will continue to use it as the sheep you are
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could switch from Steam to PlayStation Store and leave Windows behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's been boiling its frogs (sorry, I mean, customers) longer, and has moved from the ability to install any app you want, to the ability to install any app you want IF you set up preferences to allow it, to an inability to set up preferences to allow it, but if you try, a button appears (which you have to go into preferences to find) that may allow it (doesn't alway appear)...
They're one or two steps away from "app store only."
The frogs.... sorry, the customers... just one step from boiling now.
Interesting to see Microsoft begin to turn up the heat.
I guess pretty much everyone's a frog now.
Customer. I meant customer.
Re:Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple lets you install any signed app that didn't come from the app store, and bypassing the signed-app requirement simply requires you to hold down the "control" button the first time you launch it. The Mac app store has been kind of dying off.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that people like you have been claiming Macs would be app-store only just a year or two from now for 5 years right?
Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Allow me to demonstrate under the latest macOS (10.12 / Sierra):
1) Go get the screensaver bundle. [jwz.org] .dmg
2) Open the
3) Now, from the drawer with all the screen savers, drag out Pipes.saver to your desktop. It's perfectly safe. Double-click it to install it.
Here's what happens:
First, you get a dialog that says "can't install pipes screensaver" from preferences (preferences is what is normally started when you go to install a screen saver.)
Then, from the Apple menu or the prefs icon, you go to preferences / security, and there is no button. Just as I described. Pipes.saver is not installed. And prefs will not install it no matter how many times you try this. You can verify this is the case by going to Preferences, and then Desktop & Screen Saver, and looking at the list of available savers. Pipes.saver is not there.
Okay, so that's the OS install behavior as it stands today.
Now, take the Pipes.saver file, and drag it using Finder into ~/Library/Screen Savers
Now again, open preferences / Desktop & Screen Saver, and look at the list. There it is. If you choose it, it runs just fine.
This concludes our demo of macOS Sierra refusing to install working software from non-appstore vendors.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the trapdoor opens and you fall through it and the rope actually breaks your neck, the building of the scaffold, the hanging of the rope, the tying of the noose, the marching you up on to the platform, putting a hood over your head and putting the noose around your neck is all just smoke.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you build a desktop PC from parts with Linux in mind? Because a lot of home users don't have that luxury. They need a laptop in a size System76 doesn't offer, or they can't afford more than an existing hand-me-down PC. Last night I was in a chat room with someone who tried five different WLAN cards he already owned of which Ubuntu successfully detected zero, but Windows let him load a driver from a USB flash drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Last night I was in a chat room with someone who tried five different WLAN cards he already owned of which Ubuntu successfully detected zero, but Windows let him load a driver from a USB flash drive.
USB wi-fi devices should "just work" on any modern Linux, even most PCI cards should work. Failing that, a wifi bridge will work.
Re: (Score:2)
or they can't afford more than an existing hand-me-down PC.
Or better yet you do as I have done. Buy an off-lease Lenovo Thinkpad for $150.00 or so [...] and if you really need Wi-Fi a $10 Netgear WG111V3 will always work in Linux
That's good to know for people with $160 for a project. I too have had good luck with GNU/Linux on an off-lease ThinkPad, needing only to install the proprietary firmware for iwlwifi. But in this particular case, a hand-me-down PC with a hand-me-down Windows license is $0, which is $160 less and which is all my source was willing to spend on an experimental PC to run retro games.
I really don't like using Wi-Fi though, as all of the 11 channels are super congested already in most locations, and even if they are not, an Ethernet connection to the router is much faster!
A 400 foot (122 m) cable run to the basement where my source is staying (long story including disinheritance) is more than $0, as
My hobby: Finding a queue for each cue (Score:2)
If application developers have to wait in line for their applications to be reviewed and deemed worthy of publication in Windows Store, then it's also "queue".
Re: (Score:3)
Still there, called AppLocker [microsoft.com] and can be set to lock down whatever you want. Whitelist, blacklist etc.