Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | coribuci's comments login

> I hope you are joking and I am failing to pick up on it. Because such cases can be made for many human interest stories. Unless the boy was driving a self driving car I really don't see the significance to HN.

Well, the car features the new UWP UI. Even e 6 yo can drive it. /s


> > Electron

> Oh God please no. I don't need or want every application wrapped in a browser engine.

Why not ? Dont't you like those funny little creatures called worms ?

Remember Visual Basic ?


> UWP is the future of Windows APIs, Win32 is mostly frozen since WIndows XP.

Frozen is usually a good thing.

> Microsoft is just making UWP similar to what Google is making with AndroidX, detaching the technology from the OS version.

... and from users also. Will they get a lawsuit from Google for copying their UI as they got from Apple ? I think not because the UI is so bad that they will be ashamed to go to court with something like this.


Frozen is only good as means to preserve food.

What did Microsoft copied from Android?!?

If anything, Material 1.0 is heavily based on Metro.


Frozen is good because it means you can develop reliable software that will continue to work in the future without running on a constant treadmill of useless updates.


Frozen and reliable are not synonyms.

It is also hard to get bug fixes without updates.


The API is frozen, not the features and bug fixes. New APIs can be introduced (and are introduced) and bug fixes and features are added. As a very simple example, see how you can enter emojis in any unicode-aware Win32 input box application with Win+; even though this functionality was introduced in (IIRC) Windows 10 Fall Creators Update.


Most of that stuff is done in UWP/COM and exposed in Win32 via interoperability APIs.

When Vista emerged as Longhorn's reboot, all the low level .NET stuff was redone in COM.

Since then all new APIs have been to large extent based on COM.

And what many seems to not yet put on their brain, UWP is the new COM.


My point is that Win32 applications still get both new features and bug fixes, how those are implemented isn't really relevant to what i wrote.


It is because even they come via XAML Islands, or UWP/COM interop, at the end of the day it is still UWP/COM that is going forward.

Looking forward how Windows will look like now that it was officially communicated that Windows 10X is also coming to desktops and laptps, with its sandbox model for 100% of all userspace.


All that is irrelevant, the point is that having a frozen API doesn't mean that the API's implementation is also frozen. You can still get new features on a frozen API as well as new APIs alongside it.


> Is not WinUI the extraction of the UI part of the UWP stack? Yes namespaces break, but concepts and controls are from the same linage. UWP is more than the UI. It has also sandboxing and deployment.

The UWP has everything except a GUI.

> So essentially, it is not a UI.

fixed itl

> (consider e.g. WinForms was also ported from .NET Framework to .NET Core. That is also not counted here ;))

So everyday a new framework. How many days will pass until UWP will be obsolete ?


> This basically fixes all of them by building a common umbrella that all existing UI toolkits (UWP, WPF, WinForms, Win32) can use.

So intead of a screwdriver, a wrench or a hex key you have now a hammer.


That's because they dont know how to use the telemetry from calc yet. Wait, they just sold it to an advertising company.


> I wonder if it is illegal under GDPR to include spying apps on phones without telling the user.

It is illegal but it is not enforced.


> It's anonymized in the sense that you don't know who it will be sold to and what they will do with it.

So "It's anonymized" but It's not anonymized.

> In all seriousness, this is a point GDPR struggles with. It's really hard to properly define what constitutes personal data.

GDPR is good. The problem is that GDPR is not enforced because it might upset Uncle Sam


> I wonder how many devices already do this.

All Android phones. But they send the data to google and facebook so they must be good.


Source needed. The amount in the article is staggering compared to what Google claims to collect which is in line with the (admittedly not definitive) DNS query logs I monitor every now and then. Also, much of it (e.g. location) can be disabled and there are Android phones that are entirely free of Google and Facebook.


I do know for a fact that Android contacts querries Google severs to pull data from Google services, like YouTube, to fill in extra contact details on the phone.

Knowing what Google's business is, I doubt they don't merge that data for a more complete profile.

You can try this yourself: Create a YouTube account, upload a picture for the account, don't add details like a phone number.

Now create a contact on Android, add a phone number (as most people do with contacts on their phone) and add the email address you registered the YouTube account, the Android contacts app will pull the profile picture from the YouTube account, and put it on the phone as the picture for the contact.

Gave me quite a little scare when I discovered this by seeing my YouTube profile picture as the contact picture on a (rather privacy and tech-illiterate) friend's Android phone, even tho I never added any phone number to any of my Google accounts, all he did was add my email address to the contact.


Unfortunately I can't easily test this as my phone doesn't have the Google Contacts app and I sync my contacts with a CardDAV server, not my Google account.


As I said elsewhere on this page, Google Play gets an update from your phone every 2 minutes 24/7 with a lot of privacy settings enabled. Turn on a firewall, I think it was disconnect that showed me this


The content of these updates is what is potentially concerning. Considering how much Play Services now handles, regular updates aren't that surprising, and like I said Android ≠ Google so this doesn't apply to all Android phones. The mechanism described in the article sent every visited URL in the browser and opened app or settings menu on the phone to Xiaomi.


No.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: