FWIW, I don't think the fact it's a security library is why people are so shocked. It's the fact that, as far as anyone can tell, despite being a widely used and well known library, precisely two people ever looked over the code. Which is probably less than would look over a similar closed source product. It exposes just how flawed the assumption of how well reviewed FOSS code is.
3 days ago
Then the principle is still the same, except you have two known pieces of information: the "identity" and some form of "device id" which can be anything from an actual hardware id to a guid that is generated on first run, as long as it uniquely identifies the client.
Personally, I doubt it. Xamarin and Mono in general has traditionally lacked traction in the FOSS world because of the likes of RMS decrying it as some sort of evil Microsoft plot to ruin the world. If Microsoft actually bought it out, support would probably dwindle even further still.
oh great. Since when you make the final say about the behavior of taskbar? First, I don't believe you one bit. Show me exact MS official document on how taskbar MUST behave. Second, after that, I can still say your old bible is old and you are not the pope of me.
I don't have to have the final say on anything, thanks. The Taskbar has to work like the taskbar has always worked. It has to show you "running" apps distinctly from "non-running" apps because that's just utterly fundamental to the entire paradigm. It is literally built around the assumption that there are apps which the user starts and stops at will and it provides a way to switch between them. You can add fluff to that such as some apps never appearing, or pining allowing non-running apps to have a permanent place on the taskbar, but the very essence of it is fixed.
Meanwhile the fundamental assumption behind Store apps is that they act as if they are always running. You can try and graft a concept on not-running on top of that, such as the task switcher on the left sort-of does by only showing the last few used and that haven't been "closed", (itself a completely artificial concept for Store apps) but you've still got a paradigm that just runs completely contrary to what the Taskbar does at it's core. They just aren't compatible concepts and no amount of wishing they were can change that.
you are holding it wrong, and I mean it. Able to PIN has nothing to do with app status. App showing/disappear from metro bar already has nothing to do with the app status. And no, just because you can see an app in metro bar doesn't mean you need to close it Right Now.
No he isn't. He's crashing head first into exactly what I said all along was the problem with Metro apps on the Taskbar. If you use more than a few, even occasionally, you're forced to keep manually closing them or the Taskbar overflows and becomes next to useless. The two paradigms are just utterly incompatible.
What a great many people forget us that IE6 actually was more standards compliant than Netscape at the time. The biggest problem was that in the rush to get features in first, they either weren't thoroughly tested or the standard itself hadn't entirely settled down. Even that wasn't so bad but IE development being put on hold indefinitely amplified the effect over the years.
Much of the former trait can be seen in things like Chrome today, so we can only hope Google don't get bored of it and decide to move on, or the cycle begins again.
And for those situations there are desktop applications or web apps. Nobody us holding a gun to your head and forcing you to write Store apps.
And, like it or not, there are many benefits to end users from the curated and sandboxed Store development model that they'd lose from allowing unconstrained side loading. You only have to look at what a malware-fest Android has become to see that. It's entirely the thing most users would happily pay to get away from.
And, FYI, the $100 is an alternative to volume licensing. And only necessary in any case if you aren't using a domain. http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/springboard/archive/2014/04/03/windows-8-1-sideloading-enhancements.aspx
You can "sell" an app in the Windows Store for $0. And then make money via in-app purchases or via some form of subscription fee. If you don't use Microsoft's in-app purchasing service, which unlike Apple you are free not to, then Microsoft literally make no money on your app at all.
The change in sideloading charges, which is in fact a massive reduction, has brought the cost of side loading down to being on par, or cheaper, than the app store whereas previously there was a weird anomoly where a company putting a private app in the store could do so for far less than it cost to deploy internally, which just made no sense.
And the success of iOS, not to mention curated repositories on Linux distros, has proved over and over again that customers prefer getting all their software and updates from a single place. Nit to mention the amount of reach you can gain from being in a central store will usually give you far more sales than any profit sharing will affect.
And if you really don't like that, stick to writing desktop applications.
So Microsoft builds this great technology that they theoretically make lots of money on but yet they don't because it's a decoy and in the end very few get to benefit from it? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think you can claim a product as a decoy and also say they'll cripple their income stream by moving such a desirable feature to a lower priced SKU. If anything the decoy should have less of a benefit like Windows 7 Ultimate did where the vast majority of people bought lower priced SKUs because the Ultimate SKU offered very little to incentive to buy.
The people who really want that feature, those for whom it can make significant enough difference to, will simply buy the most expensive version anyway. However a lot of people who don't actually need anything from the feature set not in the Pro version will buy Premium simply because of the decoy effect. People's psychology when it comes to choosing products may seem weird, but it's a well studied and reliable marketing technique.