undefined | Better HN

0 pointsshmerl9y ago0 comments

> So what you're saying is, Windows should not strive to meet any sort of basic security capability? Because that's all UWP is: A more secure design.

Its development is rather weird though. If I understood correctly, part of the build process is out of developers' hands, and is supposed to be performed by distributor which supports UWP (especially for different architectures). Is UWP backend toolchain and implementation even available for other distributors besides Windows Store? If yes, then it's not a distributor lock-in. But if no, then Tim Sweeney was perfectly right criticizing it.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

hirsin9y ago· 2 in thread

I think you may be misinformed. You can build an app and install it using VS. You don't even need VS, apps are just exe's in zip files. Compile and lay it out right and you're done. The Store isn't required to do any of that, so I don't know what the "UWP backend" is. You might look at Hockey app (pre acquisition) for evidence of an app distributor that wasn't Microsoft.

shmerlOP9y ago

How does UWP achieve architecture agnostic releases then? They claimed it's part of the UWP design.

hirsin9y ago

You compile it to each architecture before you send it to the Store. There's a compilation option to create a .appxbundle, which contains the bits for each arch. It's basically the same as iOS fat binaries.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse