> That's fine. Ironically, now Linux and Windows (and anything else that comes up down the line) will have to serve as the 'Computer for the rest of us'
I'm expecting Windows to move towards a more sandboxed experience as well, at least for Metro/WinRT. I know Miguel de Icaza also hopes for broad sandboxing support by default.
Regarding TFA, he does not make much of a case against sandboxing (applications not being able to write wherever the hell they want without warning the user counts as a positive in my book), and his final quote (of Tim Bray) is relevant to appstores, but it has no relevance whatsoever to sandboxing. Not impressed. Even the plugins stuff has limited relevance in the grand scheme of things, it will affect some applications for non-technical users (more technically oriented ones will likely be able to put their plugins where they know they should be).
> I'm expecting Windows to move towards a more sandboxed experience as well
It already does to some extent.
Internet Explorer was the first to introduce it (to my now out of date understanding), and it's since expanded to other products including shipped Windows apps, Office, etc.
It happens invisibly for the developer, if you think the registry that you access is THE registry then you're wrong. It's a proxy that you access, and the proxy has a view on what you will see or not.
Basically, you the user get the choice, but by default your apps, the things they open, are all sandboxed and protected. For compatibility reasons you can currently choose to override this, but as you might expect group policy can be used to disable someone's ability to lower their security.
Actually, Windows 8 apps are sandboxed too. Take a look at the Microsoft requirements to distribute a new Metro-Style app through their own app store. Same sandboxed requirements. Microsoft must approve and developers must justify any access to resources outside the standard sandbox set.
Yes, but the desktop experience and apps will still be a big part of Windows 8 unless you're running it on an ARM tablet. Microsoft will happily link to your native non-sandboxed app from their App Store.
Sandboxing in general is great. It only becomes a problem if there's no mechanism for users to adjust permissions for apps in cases where they are overly strict.
I love how sandboxing on smartphones have gotten users to ask more questions of why a certain app needs the permissions they request, for example.
I'm expecting Windows to move towards a more sandboxed experience as well, at least for Metro/WinRT. I know Miguel de Icaza also hopes for broad sandboxing support by default.
Regarding TFA, he does not make much of a case against sandboxing (applications not being able to write wherever the hell they want without warning the user counts as a positive in my book), and his final quote (of Tim Bray) is relevant to appstores, but it has no relevance whatsoever to sandboxing. Not impressed. Even the plugins stuff has limited relevance in the grand scheme of things, it will affect some applications for non-technical users (more technically oriented ones will likely be able to put their plugins where they know they should be).