W11 HOPEFULL OR ?

[BaronVerde]

A) that's not a protocol,

Yes, it is a protocol. Edge implemenst a set of rules how to process it. We don't know how exactly they look like.

its a URI call that's an alias for the edge executable.

An alias replces a command with another, often used to create shortcuts to complex options passed to a command. This doesn't happen here. Something aside from Edge intercepts the settings, and redirects them to edge. It is not an alias on command line level.

Think about it for a minute. The executable is designed to take certain command line arguments to enable or disable certain visual features of Edge. How would forcing that alias over to another browser handle those arguments that are likely only written into edge as specified?

It is not an alias like in "alias astring anotherstring". Normally, it would just be a design error to suppress parametrisation of user programs, but here it is abuse. First of all the microsoft-ege:// protocol(sic) is meant to distribute "web experience" and collect data from user behaviour. There is no functionality gained for users, this could be done with https://, too, without any downsides for the user. Apart from any browser supporting https://.., and that's the reason, to exclude competition. Edge probably makes, after extracting some info, internally https:// out of it anyway before forwarding it. Second, the MS protocol is undocumented, other browsers will have to run after MS. Thirdly, a deflector to keep MS from intercepting it, can better be blocked (which happens). I can go on and on reciting the texts, but you may want to read them on your own.

and seriously, for the thousandth time, why would a user invoke the alias that has edge in the name and get pissed that something else doesn't open?

Othe way round, a user wants to invoke something that is not intercepted by MS, but is kept from doinf so and led to MS's "web experience". Just can't avoid being exposed to the constant stream of ads. I don't want my PC to behave that way, I consider it near criminal.

If I typed in telnet:// and f'n notepad opened or whatever, I'd be massively pissed.

Telnet doesn't feed you with ads all day long.

I'd expect an alias that has the name of the specific application it's associated to to open that specific application. Just like shortcut icons on a desktop or in the start menu.

But if I changed the association to an application, I want the new application to take over. The OS won't let me (maybe with some gymnastics, but that's shabby).

B) I didn't say the article said that. Baron did, however.

I did say MS forces the edge browser, I relativated that it is made rather complicated. First is that's true for the bombardment with "web experience", the latter for the rest.

Again, I have no problem with people submitting to that behaviour, but an alternative should be pointed out. This is not the Windows fanboy/girl/other thread, it's the "hopeful or ?" thread, and I allow me some criticism.

Let's stay civil.

Ok, back to my Linux From Scratch.

Edit: Oh, by the way, why did you switch to Windows 11, vertigo ?

[Vertigo 7]

yes yes. MS is evil. you're right. whatever you say.

[Terre]

"A Universal Resource Identifier (URI) is a member of this universal set of names in registered name spaces and addresses referring to registered protocols or name spaces."

https://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/uri-spec.html

[Vertigo 7]

Said that in so many words at least half a dozen times now. Thanks.

[BaronVerde]

You said an URI is an alias for an executable.

Emotet is back:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/emotet-on ... e-is-back/

While phishing is an issue on all OSs, executing a file sent via email is not as simple as a click on Linux (or Mac), because its execution right must be set by the user and files are not executed by their ending.

Arguably, a user should be knowledgeable enough to do that, and to be aware of the consequences, which could be that their data is messed up if they do the "pls. save the attached file, chmod +x it, execute it", or better yet "sudo chmod +xs" . Ofc, a user who is not aware should not be given the right to execute commands as root, e.g. via sudo or su, would be my argumentation. Just like a root user must be aware that one command can destroy a system.

[Vertigo 7]

"A Universal Resource Identifier (URI)... referring to registered protocols OR name spaces."

What about that confuses you?

If I open up a command prompt shell and type "microsoft-edge://", the URI refers to the registered name space for "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\application\msedge.exe"

If I type "microsoft-edge:https://dictionary.com", the URI refers to the registered name space for "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\application\msedge.exe" https://dictionary.com

If I type in ""C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\application\msedge.exe" https://dictionary.com, edge opens to dictionary.com.

MAGIC!

[BaronVerde]

Yep, magic, that's the problem for people like me

It is not the URI that refers, that's just text, it is your OS doing things for you. When I type "https://" or another protocol or scheme name in a shell I am not directed to some program, I get a lapidary "command or file not found" or some such because my OS does not try to read my mind. And doesn't frantically use its own browser over others.

Maybe there is Linux shell out there that does it (no idea, I use bash and dash),I probably wouldn't install it. I could do a couple of scripts to replicate that, my time is better spent elsewhere.

I can choose my browser and if it spams me with ads more than the visited pages do, or use ad blockers that are manufacturer independent. Windows users not(?), or at least it is made difficult. If they want it that way, no problem, I am pointing out alternatives.

[Vertigo 7]

... i can't even... I did not start the sequence by typing https://

For the bajillionth time. URI's are not protocols. They can refer to protocols, but they cannot BE protocols.

HTTP = hyper text transfer protocol
FTP = file transfer protocol
SSH = secure shell protocol
RDP = remote desktop protocol

microsoft-edge: NOT a protocol it's an explicit call to open edge. This is not rocket surgery dude.

If you wanna die on this hill, you go right ahead, but stop trying to take other people with you.

[BaronVerde]

I din't say URIs are protcols, you didn't read me. Don't twist my words.

You brought up URIs saying they are aliases, referring to a post that linked a text "Windows 11 blocks Edge browser competitors from opening links".

That text stated that the protocol microsoft-edge:// is not redirectable to https:// any more in its second paragraph.

You said "that's not a protocol, its a URI call that's an alias for the edge executable".

So, I understood you saying https:// is not a protocol but an URI. You may have meant something different then from what that text was talking about, in which case you might want to clarify which URIs you are talking about, in contrast to the mentioned protocols the text was about, which doesn't contain URI at all. If that makes sense.

Anyway, the URI is not an alias per se, it is a rather complex construct to be further processed. In order to process it, your OS fakes a program call for you for anything microsodt-edge:// and leaves you without a choice which program to call. Do the same 'magic' you showed above with chrome, firefox, opera, etc., it will not work if the sources are to be trusted, or it will need some tedious clicks.

The reason of keeping people from choosing freely is, as has been written sveral times, is stuffing people with ads and "web experience" and narrowing their access to information, which some do not want to be exposed to.

Once again, I have no problem with people accepting that, and I ask you to not have a problem with people rejecting that behaviour, can we agree on that ?

--------------------------------

Edit @terre has llinked a changelog of MS, in which they state say that they fixed an issue in which links to microsoft-edge:// were improperly redirected. I don't know what that fix looks like, but would expect it to redirect as https:// after having dealt with it.

--------------------------------

I find more things worthwhile to discuss:

Emotet is back:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/emotet-on ... e-is-back/

While phishing is an issue on all OSs, executing a file sent via email is not as simple as a click on Linux (or Mac), because its execution right must be set by the user and files are not executed by their ending.

Arguably, a user should be knowledgeable enough to do that, and to be aware of the consequences, which could be that their data is messed up if they do the "pls. save the attached file, chmod +x it, execute it", or better yet "sudo chmod +xs" . Ofc, a user who is not aware should not be given the right to execute commands as root, e.g. via sudo or su, would be my argumentation. Just like a root user must be aware that one command can destroy a system.

[pjknibbs]

When I type "https://" or another protocol or scheme name in a shell I am not directed to some program, I get a lapidary "command or file not found" or some such because my OS does not try to read my mind. And doesn't frantically use its own browser over others.

And you know what? Windows does exactly the same. Try typing a URI starting https:// and it'll just tell you there's no such program. If you wanted to actually open a URI that way you'd have to preface it with the "start" command, which has been in Windows for getting on for 30 years now.

[Vertigo 7]

I din't say URIs are protcols, you didn't read me. Don't twist my words.

Oh?

A) that's not a protocol,

Yes, it is a protocol. Edge implemenst a set of rules how to process it. We don't know how exactly they look like.

Kind of hard to misinterpret that. Unless you're saying "Yes, it is" means something different wherever you're from.

You brought up URIs saying they are aliases, referring to a post that linked a text "Windows 11 blocks Edge browser competitors from opening links".

Yes I did. Because an alias is exactly how it is designed. Again, it's a short cut to the 5 or 6 folder deep path to the executable. Told ya, the article was BS. You keep treating it's the gospel truth, without any first hand knowledge or experience, I might add.

That text stated that the protocol microsoft-edge:// is not redirectable to https:// any more in its second paragraph.

I don't care what the text stated. "microsoft-edge:https://dictionary.com" damn sure opens the website for me in Edge.

You said "that's not a protocol, its a URI call that's an alias for the edge executable".

Yes I did. You and Terre both have repeated that microsoft-edge:// is a protocol. You're both wrong.

So, I understood you saying https:// is not a protocol but an URI. You may have meant something different then from what that text was talking about, in which case you might want to clarify which URIs you are talking about, in contrast to the mentioned protocols the text was about, which doesn't contain URI at all. If that makes sense.

I never ONCE said that.

Anyway, the URI is not an alias per se, it is a rather complex construct to be further processed. In order to process it, your OS fakes a program call for you for anything microsodt-edge:// and leaves you without a choice which program to call. Do the same 'magic' you showed above with chrome, firefox, opera, etc., it will not work if the sources are to be trusted, or it will need some tedious clicks.

da fuq ever. Chrome has its own URI call and other browsers likely do as well. Even if they don't, people can create their own registry keys to make them if they wish and know how. Either way all it's doing is passing the substring to the executable.

The reason of keeping people from choosing freely is, as has been written sveral times, is stuffing people with ads and "web experience" and narrowing their access to information, which some do not want to be exposed to.

/yawn

You keep accusing MS of limiting choices without knowing wtf you're talking about. You haven't touched Windows in 7 years, by your own admission. 7 years ago, you could install any browser you wished. You can still do that today. Don't know how many times you have to be told that for it to sink in. At this point, it's nothing but willful ignorance on your part.

Once again, I have no problem with people accepting that, and I ask you to not have a problem with people rejecting that behaviour, can we agree on that ?

Yeah, except you're just making bs up or parroting some bs you read. This behavior exists in your head, not in reality.

[Imperial Good]

Worth noting that Edge is basically Chrome with a different UI wrapper. The only reason to choose one over the other is if you prefer how one does something over the other since fundamentally they are both as secure, both as performant and both as correct at rendering. Only Safari and FireFox, and possibly some other smaller ones, are fundamentally different engines.

Why Windows 11 tries to force Edge usage I am not sure. I suspect it is similar to how Mac OS tries to force Safari usage. By keeping them part of the OS you can create a cohesive experience that can be kept up to date and secure. As opposed to Fire Fox where the user might choose to never update it.

[red assassin]

Good lord, guys, nuance is a thing.

Having a URL scheme to open a specific app, e.g. Edge, rather than the generic handler for a protocol is a perfectly sensible thing to do. It's entirely possible to define shortcuts (.desktop files) in Linux which open particular apps rather than asking for the generic handler for a protocol as well. However, Microsoft use this scheme for things which are in no way actually doing something which would require Edge, like web results from the search bar, which is pretty underhanded. Additionally, once Edge is opened, it'll pop up a modal asking you to switch your default browser to Edge if it isn't currently, and if you try and switch the default browser (in current Win 10) away from Edge it'll pop up a dialogue objecting to it, which you have to click the non-default option to get past. Chrome doesn't currently seem to be able to automatically change the default either, it just pops up the Settings page (which is the one that complains when you try and switch) - Edge can automatically switch you back though. I haven't tested Win 11 in particular, but Microsoft have certainly been making it more and more irritating to switch from Edge over the last few Win 10 feature updates and it is a dick move. That said, Edge isn't as aggressive about stealing your personal data as Chrome is, and it certainly doesn't "flood you with advertising" - its behaviour is very similar to all the other browsers (which default to home page/new tab pages carrying content the browser vendor controls or is paid for).

While phishing is an issue on all OSs, executing a file sent via email is not as simple as a click on Linux (or Mac), because its execution right must be set by the user and files are not executed by their ending.

Yeah, Windows won't just run an executable from an email or web download either. You have to bypass a number of scary security warnings, and more if it fails reputation and/or code signing checks. The vast majority of email/downloadable malware distribution uses either a lure document that walks a user through turning off the security warnings to run something or enable macros; some sort of exploit to gain execution; or is bundled with a legitimate application installer or similar. All of those tricks work just fine on Linux and macOS as well.

"installers are signed", it is probably a key that is signed, because checking a signature on the whole installer (GB size ?) would take quite some time. I mean, a long time if there is a somewhat relevant key involved. Or has windows a different methods than public-key for decryption ? Do people actually use that feature ?

Signatures on Windows are implemented the same way as they are literally everywhere else which does message signing: you hash the message and sign the hash. Windows uses the same PKI as TLS as the root of trust (you just need a certificate with code signing rather than server flags enabled) and checks and enforces code signing at runtime. (You can configure accepted certificates and what to do on signature check failure, along with other controls on what applications can run, e.g. if you're an enterprise which wants to allow-list specific apps and anything signed by your enterprise code signing certs, and block anything else from executing.) This is a stricter check than Linux, which (for all major distros) performs signature checking at the point of installing a package from a package manager, but not at runtime. On Linux you accept a repository key at the point you enable a repository (and there's not really a good way of verifying this, other than the ones preinstalled with your OS), whereas on Windows (by default) the vendor has to pass a CA's verification checks and purchase a code signing cert, but the user doesn't have to install the key themselves, so there's pros and cons of either model. Just checking the hash of a downloaded file buys you nothing security-wise, because the hash you're looking at isn't sent to you via a different mechanism to the actual installer package - you need it to be signed and trust to the signing key to be established via some other means.

What is actually the point of updating from 10 to 11, other than MS threatening to end support in ~5 years ?

Why would one spend time and maybe money (idk, read it costs 200 bucks, but maybe an upgrade is cheaper or else customers run away) on the 11 instead of 10 ?

Microsoft have never switched off free updates from Windows 7/8 to 10 so it seems unlikely they'll disable free updates to 11 either. You update for the same reason you update literally any other software: new features and continuing security support.

Ok, back to my Linux From Scratch.

This is a terrible idea for security - distros have large teams responsible for shipping security updates promptly; you don't. Keeping a LFS system up to date is effectively impossible. As a learning exercise in an isolated VM, sure, go for it.

[mr.WHO]

Microsoft have never switched off free updates from Windows 7/8 to 10 so it seems unlikely they'll disable free updates to 11 either. You update for the same reason you update literally any other software: new features and continuing security support.

Yeah, two years ago I update my old laptop from Win7 to Win10 using original Win7 key. To my suprise the Laptop boot and ran better than on Win7 (and it was update without cleaning the system).
I think that with Win10 support dropping in 2025, Microsoft will be interested in people updating to Win11, so they will keep the free update as well.

The only limiting factos is hardware requirement, that will keep most of a few years old old equipment from updating to Win11.

Personally I'm encoraged by Win11 reception and feedback, but I don't like trying anything on release (thanks to AAA game industry).
Thus I'll wait a few more months, but I plan to update both my current laptops (that fortunately meet hardware requirements) to Win11 next year.

[Terre]

Personally I'm encoraged by Win11 reception and feedback, but I don't like trying anything on release (thanks to AAA game industry).
Thus I'll wait a few more months, but I plan to update both my current laptops (that fortunately meet hardware requirements) to Win11 next year.

I'm waiting until at least March, the move will be based on curiosity rather than need.

But when I do move, may give the following a try.
ThisIsWin11 looks an interesting tool to get get rid of the pre-installed crap and other stuff.

https://github.com/builtbybel/ThisIsWin11

As always, use at your own risk.

[pjknibbs]

I'm waiting until at least March, the move will be based on curiosity rather than need.

The only one of the five PCs I use on a regular basis that *can* be upgraded to 11 is my main gaming PC, so I'm holding off for a while because (a) it's a Ryzen and there are still some issues with those and (b) you never get in on the ground floor of *any* new OS...better to wait for them to iro out the problems.

[Gavrushka]

When people are talking about choosing when to upgrade, does that mean they already have access to Win11, but are delaying installing?

I have a 'Features Update' available, but it's for me to choose to install, although for once it doesn't come under 'optional updates' as, umm, optional updates usually do. - It is titled Win10 version 21H2; is this some kind of precursor to Win11? I normally don't do other than wait for Windows to tell me 'reboot for update' and don't really have the technical ability to make an informed decision on this Features Update. Advice would be welcome.

I always feel a little uncomfortable posting on this kind of thread, as all I usually have to bring is my own naivety liberally sprinkled with stupidity.

[Vertigo 7]

The only one of the five PCs I use on a regular basis that *can* be upgraded to 11 is my main gaming PC, so I'm holding off for a while because (a) it's a Ryzen and there are still some issues with those and (b) you never get in on the ground floor of *any* new OS...better to wait for them to iro out the problems.

I've got 2. 1 i enrolled in the beta branch, and the other I enrolled in the dev branch.

Most of the back end changes were relatively minor from 10, like moving more of the legacy control panel functions into settings, new dx 12 features, and so forth. I felt pretty confident that any issues to moving were going to be minor, and that ended up being the case. Both branches have been stable and hasn't been any compatibility issues that I've run into with any software or hardware (but i don't use AMD anything =p)

Aside from the usual learning what's different in the UI any time the OS changes like that, it's been pretty rock solid. In fact, the OS feels even more responsive than 10 did. I was even shocked to see BIOS updates come down for my laptop through Windows Updates. No idea if that would have been offered in 10 or not but first time I've ever seen that happen. But it updated without a hitch.

The gaming experience has been great. I do like the auto HDR option that can be applied to non-HDR content, it does make a difference even if it's not "real" HDR.

I admit that I do prefer the tiled start menu to the one in 11 but it's not like I spend a lot of time looking at the start menu anyway so meh. But thats cosmetic and doesn't impact day to day usability. I still run all the things I could before upgrading and everything works as expected out of the box.

[Vertigo 7]

When people are talking about choosing when to upgrade, does that mean they already have access to Win11, but are delaying installing?

I have a 'Features Update' available, but it's for me to choose to install, although for once it doesn't come under 'optional updates' as, umm, optional updates usually do. - It is titled Win10 version 21H2; is this some kind of precursor to Win11? I normally don't do other than wait for Windows to tell me 'reboot for update' and don't really have the technical ability to make an informed decision on this Features Update. Advice would be welcome.

I always feel a little uncomfortable posting on this kind of thread, as all I usually have to bring is my own naivety liberally sprinkled with stupidity.

Feature updates are not the same as optional updates. 21H2 roll up includes some new 'features' for 10. no harm in updating to it. You can look at MS's web site for all the new stuff added in that but they've been adding feature updates to 10 for a while like that, semi annually. (2021 2nd half of the year)

[pjknibbs]

I have a 'Features Update' available, but it's for me to choose to install, although for once it doesn't come under 'optional updates' as, umm, optional updates usually do. - It is titled Win10 version 21H2; is this some kind of precursor to Win11? I normally don't do other than wait for Windows to tell me 'reboot for update' and don't really have the technical ability to make an informed decision on this Features Update. Advice would be welcome.

You need to run the Windows 11 compatibility checker from Microsoft's website, it sounds like there's something on the machine which prevents it being upgraded.