Justification by faith in Microsoft. Really? The MSI/MSIX kerfuffle

[Granddaddy]

Among the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of posts about problems and fixes for the Affinity 2 MSIX installation and execution problems, we were told that MSIX is the direction Microsoft is heading so we must follow. In some cases that might be sufficient justification for a decision, in other cases not so much.

This got me thinking about other directions in which Microsoft was heading over the past 35 years. At times a significant number of people reacted negatively to Microsoft's direction and decided not to follow. The users resisted becoming victims of bad decisions by Microsoft. The company was then forced to change direction in order to maintain credibility and survive in the marketplace.

You might remember Microsoft Bob and Clippy the Office Assistant, which eventually vanished under a wave of ridicule.
(see for instance https://yakbots.com/microsoft-clippy-office-assistant/ )

I remember at least one Windows "upgrade" (Vista or Windows 8 or both, can't remember exactly because I skipped both) that was so awful it caused many people to forgo purchasing new Windows computers. Some users were driven to abandon Windows and move to Apple computers. Microsoft moved fairly quickly to bring out a more acceptable version of Windows. 

Today many of us despise the tiled, phone-like, native user interface on Windows 10/11. We use alternative shells like Open Shell or more than a dozen other alternatives that provide improved control and usability in managing our work.

Microsoft made a huge mistake when it resisted incorporating TCP/IP protocols into Windows 3.1. Many of us turned to the marvelous Trumpet Winsock written not by a huge corporation but by a programmer in Tasmania. (Until then, most of us did not know a thing about Tasmania except what we had learned from Bugs Bunny cartoons.) Trumpet Winsock allowed us to run  a variety of Windows internet client software whether or not Microsoft approved. Within a relatively short time, Microsoft issued a TCP/IP addon for Windows and finally got the protocols fully integrated in Windows 95.

I am all for going with the defaults. Maintaining departures from defaults can be time consuming when underlying systems are upgraded. But sometimes the defaults must be bypassed and overwritten in pursuit of more usable and effective end-user systems.

[deeds]

The mother of all "Microsoft" decisions was redirected by non other than the Supreme Court of the USA, and caused Bill Gates to need to (at least) appear to relinquish leadership. The biggest antitrust case since Standard Oil was broken up.

In the years since, Microsoft has done nothing other than indicate that they should never be followed and all their actions and all their leadership and motivations deserve the utmost scrutiny and sceptical consideration.

Bill Gates himself has doubled down on that with everything he's become involved with since, including partnerships with the most fined companies in the history of all companies and the most troubled high profile individual in the world. 

And that's before we discuss Windows 8, the UWP connivances and the subsequent skipping of Windows 9 to make a forever Windows 10, which was then replaced by Windows 11. And then there's the fun of their updates breaking (often) more than they fix, on the most used Operating System on the planet.

 

 

 

[fde101]

You seem to miss the point: Windows itself is a Microsoft product.  If they were to drop support for some API, what choice would developers have?

It is generally best for developers to work within the framework established by the vendor of the OS they are building on.  In this case that means that developers will likely start shifting in the direction of using MSIX.

Serif is not likely to be the only one doing this.  Others are probably going to follow suit also.

[deeds]

10 minutes ago, fde101 said:

You seem to miss the point: Windows itself is a Microsoft product.  If they were to drop support for some API, what choice would developers have?

It is generally best for developers to work within the framework established by the vendor of the OS they are building on.  In this case that means that developers will likely start shifting in the direction of using MSIX.

Serif is not likely to be the only one doing this.  Others are probably going to follow suit also.

You've entirely missed the point.

 

Windows/Microsoft almost always make bad decisions. It's only user and supplier and legal pushbacks that change those poor choices. Acquiescing to them only ensures they'll do even worse, with less consideration, the very next time they get a chance, rather than reconsider whatever was their last disastrously user hostile process addition.

[fde101]

2 minutes ago, deeds said:

Microsoft almost always make bad decisions.

Clearly they do - thus why I don't like using Windows at all.

That said, this one has several clear benefits (Serif already listed a number of these in the thread where they explained why they made the decision to use MSIX), and no obvious downsides other than disrupting processes that were built on an assortment of false assumptions (or which simply need to be updated to deal with the new format).

I don't believe there is a legal case to be made here.

[deeds]

2 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Clearly they do - thus why I don't like using Windows at all.

That said, this one has several clear benefits (Serif already listed a number of these in the thread where they explained why they made the decision to use MSIX), and no obvious downsides other than disrupting processes that were built on an assortment of false assumptions (or which simply need to be updated to deal with the new format).

I don't believe there is a legal case to be made here.

The OBVIOUS ramifications of following the MSIX "ways" are the same as UWP... lock in.

 

Haven't we had enough of that in the last few years?

 

[simonjonnemeth]

32 minutes ago, deeds said:

The OBVIOUS ramifications of following the MSIX "ways" are the same as UWP... lock in.

 

Haven't we had enough of that in the last few years?

 

No one seems to have mentioned that the Microsoft Store versions and the Affinity Store versions are now interchangeable where the old versions weren't. Maybe MSIX was a requirement to allow this?

[walt.farrell]

45 minutes ago, deeds said:

The OBVIOUS ramifications of following the MSIX "ways" are the same as UWP... lock in.

"Lock in" to what?

You're already using the Windows version of Affinity applications, so you're locked in to Windows. Unless you decide to switch to Mac.

(Yes, you could try to play games and get the apps to run on Linux, but they are not supported there and once you get them working (which no one has fully succeeded at yet), they will break at some time and when they break Serif will not help you.)

[deeds]

6 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

"Lock in" to what?

You're already using the Windows version of Affinity applications, so you're locked in to Windows. Unless you decide to switch to Mac.

(Yes, you could try to play games and get the apps to run on Linux, but they are not supported there and once you get them working (which no one has fully succeeded at yet), they will break at some time and when they break Serif will not help you.)

Do you, or do you not, understand the OP's points?

Do you, or do you not, have any idea why folks are wanting an installer and control of their installations of Affinity products on Windows?

[walt.farrell]

39 minutes ago, deeds said:

Do you, or do you not, understand the OP's points?

Yes, I believe I do.

You are the first one (at least in this thread) to mention "lock in".  Therefore, I asked what you mean.

39 minutes ago, deeds said:

Do you, or do you not, have any idea why folks are wanting an installer and control of their installations of Affinity products on Windows?

Yes, but I believe they're making too big a deal out of it. You, and they, are free to believe otherwise, as you want, of course.

[deeds]

23 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Yes, I believe I do.

You are the first one (at least in this thread) to mention "lock in".  Therefore, I asked what you mean.

Yes, but I believe they're making too big a deal out of it. You, and they, are free to believe otherwise, as you want, of course.

And I think you did that disingenuously, and do this as a matter of course and practice, for all those things in all those threads around anything you believe to be contrary to whatever narratives fill your head. It seems you're almost always seeking to diminish concerns, feed distractions, obfuscations and/or minimisations to anything that might be sincere, genuine, heartfelt and real concerns about the choices of Affinity, expressed by users.

 You're free to think otherwise, but the sheer amount of evidence is enormous.

If you're not being paid for this kind of "advocacy", perhaps consider why that is.

[walt.farrell]

35 minutes ago, deeds said:

And I think you did that disingenuously,

I did not.

What, please, does Serif's decision to use MSIX installers lock you in to.

It's true that it means you cannot choose the exact install path, but I don't see why that is a big deal in any practical terms. It's also true that due to poor designs of some 3rd-party apps, or bugs in them, they could not link to the V2 apps. But that is solvable without you being able to choose an install directory.

 

[deeds]

3 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

I did not.

What, please, does Serif's decision to use MSIX installers lock you in to.

It's true that it means you cannot choose the exact install path, but I don't see why that is a big deal in any practical terms. It's also true that due to poor designs of some 3rd-party apps, or bugs in them, they could not link to the V2 apps. But that is solvable without you being able to choose an install directory.

 

You've proved my point far greater than I ever could articulate it.

The focus should be on the abstracted constructs of wisdom filled decision makings regarding choosing (or not) to follow ANYTHING that's trumpeted by Microsoft, ever.

 

and you're trying to make it about me?

[walt.farrell]

47 minutes ago, deeds said:

The focus should be on the abstracted constructs of wisdom filled decision makings regarding choosing

I'm sorry, but that's meaningless to me.

48 minutes ago, deeds said:

and you're trying to make it about me?

I simply asked what you meant by "locked-in". I'm not trying to make this about anything, just trying to understand that one statement you made.

[deeds]

2 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

I'm sorry, but that's meaningless to me.

I simply asked what you meant by "locked-in". I'm not trying to make this about anything, just trying to understand that one statement you made.

Still seems incredibly disingenuous given both the context immediately here in the OP's posting, and the recent history of Microsoft. Then there's the prescient complaints you've seen and been responding to in this forum and the definitive expressions of intent by Microsoft regarding both UWP and this new "version" of that initiative.

 

Further, you seem to have some knowledge of the games market. It's highly unlikely you're unaware of the Tim Sweeney's commentary on all things App Store related, including the ways in which Microsoft approaches these opportunities for consumer lock-in and behavioural control techniques.

 

[debraspicher]

15 hours ago, Granddaddy said:

Among the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of posts about problems and fixes for the Affinity 2 MSIX installation and execution problems, we were told that MSIX is the direction Microsoft is heading so we must follow. In some cases that might be sufficient justification for a decision, in other cases not so much.

It sounded like from @Mark Ingram's FAQ post that they had hoped it would help alleviate some of the technical support woes from their end, but it was based upon the idea of sandboxing installs and therefore making it more difficult for end user's to even unintentionally break said installs. That seems to be most of it. I did find it ironic that some of the praise was around the clean uninstall perk (oh no, uninstall!), though getting user's back to a guaranteed clean state does help to rule out other problems during troubleshooting. I'm more surprised they trust MS' approach to software design given their track record with mandatory updates/cumulatives. Especially with the impact of a certain Windows update on V1 causing problems though this was likely decided prior to that. There is also the fact they can't rely on those larger companies (AMD GPUs come to mind) or third parties to resolve conflicts with their products (no incentive...) so they're stuck spending time patching for another company's blunders.  So I think it was done for resource savings and also to make troubleshooting more straightforward. So a process similar to how uninstalling/reinstalling apps would work on a handheld device seemed more appealing and the way to go.

I don't agree with the sandbox philosophy, at least as far as Windows is concerned. I believe it goes against the appeal of the OS for many users. Even users that don't even realize they were benefiting. Also, it is really awkward for a small company who don't have much rapport with Serif to have to invest substantial time on IT working around increased complexity and deal with Window's quirks. Even though the benefit was meant to be easier installs, this did not bear out in practice. MS cannot be blamed for the pickier installs because they're not forcing companies to use it (yet, maybe), they're simply offering an option to use their solution...

[thomasp]

Going one step further, I find the general trajectory of Windows very unpleasant. MSIX just seems to tie nicely into that.

Hand-holding, second-guessing and even overriding the user's decisions at every turn seems par for the course. For someone who got started with NT4 and W2000 style operating systems it's so much work to fight this thing from a fresh install, every iteration of it seems more obnoxious and deliberately designed to annoy. Suffice to say I dread upgrading these days.

Time for more applications to move to Linux so we can leave this abomination of an OS behind. 😇

[fde101]

7 hours ago, debraspicher said:

I don't agree with the sandbox philosophy, at least as far as Windows is concerned.

In the realm of computer security, there is a concept called the principle of least privilege.

The short version is that you maximize security by minimizing what each individual entity on the system is able to do, to the minimum set of things it needs to be able to do in order to accomplish its task.

When you run a program in a conventional operating system, you generally run it with the same authority as the user who starts that program - that is, if you run a word processor as a user who has access to files containing financial data, then the word processor has access to that financial data.

If there is a bug in the word processor which causes it to randomly delete files from your system, or if the word processor was infected with a virus which encrypts data on your system, your financial data, which the word processor had no need to access at all, is at risk.

Even if there were no ill intent on the part of the word processor, it has no need to access that data at all.  There is also the possibility of the user inadvertently issuing a "delete all files on my computer" command, which the word processor could easily do (if such a command is implemented in it) if it is running without restrictions.  Restricting every program on the system to the minimum access it needs to do its job helps to limit the extent of the damage which could otherwise be done, whether due to a bug, due to malware, or due to user error.

 

There is a form of security called a capabilities architecture which has been implemented in a small number of operating systems in the past.  With this architecture, a program starts with no privileges except the minimum it needs in order to function at all, and it gets capabilities for exactly the set of files or other resources it needs, carrying both the information about what it should access, and what it is permitted to do with those things - it might have a capability granting read-only access to a particular document, and one allowing read-write access to its preferences file, for example.  The program can't even request access to anything it does not have a capability for - it can only be given access by something else which already has that access.  This is the ultimate expression of the principle of least privilege, and rather than the supposedly modern "sandboxing" concept, the access flows naturally from the organization of the system.

 

In contrast, conventional operating systems such as Windows, macOS, UNIX, and Linux, grant access primarily based on the user who is running the application, meaning that all applications being run by the same user have the same level of access.  This is inherently insecure, because not all programs need access to the same things, even if the same user is running them.  One bad program, or a mistake by a user, can damage everything the user has access to.

 

While in theory a capabilities architecture could be applied even to a graphical environment, it is fundamentally incompatible with the design of the popular operating systems currently in use (UNIX, Linux, Windows, macOS, etc.), and it would be virtually impossible to convert them to use that concept - which has led to all kinds of ways that OS vendors have attempted create hybrid security measures that combine the conventional ACL-based security with other techniques to help limit the damage that a rogue program or a user mistake can cause when using those programs.

 

The "sandbox" concept (which Apple also uses for many programs) is one variation of that.  It is obviously intended to help minimize the changes that need to be made to the individual applications in order to gain the benefits of added isolation, but it only provides limited isolation, and creates a great deal of inconvenience for the user.  It does help to improve security, but only to a more limited extent.  It also adds overhead, as accesses need to be validated multiple ways by the underlying environment, and this creates opportunities for bugs in the implementation that can lead to flaws in the sandboxing.

 

Ideally an entirely new operating system should be created based on capabilities, which is engineered to allow that isolation naturally as a consequence of its design.  I believe a completely transparent user experience would be possible which might be slightly different from what we are currently accustomed to, but which would eliminate all of the complex mechanics that are needed to maintain a sandbox by providing a much more natural expression of a secure environment which would surpass what is possible with conventional operating systems, at the cost of needing to rethink the way that all of the software on that system is engineered.

 

The catch is that people and companies are so invested in our current systems that it would take a long time for that transition to gain momentum.  Applications would need to be rewritten from scratch in many cases, by the very nature of what I am suggesting to do.  As a result we wind up with these half-hearted workarounds that are probably sucking up even more of our time than would be taken by doing it right in the first place - and they do absolutely nothing to get things moving in the right direction.

 

A sandbox as presented by macOS or Windows is not ideal, but it is much better than not having one, in that it helps to protect you more than the conventional mechanisms would.  It is not something to be casually discarded while we are stuck with such fundamentally lacking system architectures.  Eventually we should try to replace them with something which is architected in such a way that programs are naturally isolated using some form of capabilities mechanism, eliminating the need for the overhead and annoyances caused by these half-way solutions.

[walt.farrell]

10 hours ago, deeds said:

It's highly unlikely you're unaware of the Tim Sweeney's commentary o

No idea who Tim Sweeney is, and am totally unaware of anything he's ever said. Sorry.

10 hours ago, deeds said:

Then there's the prescient complaints you've seen and been responding to in this forum and the definitive expressions of intent by Microsoft regarding both UWP and this new "version" of that initiative.

If that's what you mean by "locked in": 

1. No, I am not familiar with Microsoft's statements in that area; and
2. If you are locked-in, aren't you  locked-in simply by using Windows at all? How Serif decides to install the product doesn't seem relevant in that context.

[deeds]

For those naive about the operations of monopolies, look up Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

[debraspicher]

3 hours ago, fde101 said:

In the realm of computer security, there is a concept called the principle of least privilege.

 

52 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I understand the desire for more advanced users to do things their way, but the fact is 95% of Windows users are not advanced. It is probably why Windows is by far the most hacked OS out there, not just because it is the most used on the desktop. Windows security and vulnerabilities in general have always been a problem.

I certainly understand all this approach. When I said I didn't agree this philosophy, I was very clear this was with regard to Windows itself. MS are already taking a different approach requiring things like TPM to run future OS, which is the right call. However, they're not like Apple or Linux and I don't think MS is particularly skilled at making decisions for users for them. They are better at a one-size-fits-all ish approaches that gives the user more control without the added complexity and that's the appeal of Windows. Even with its drawbacks.

As I understand it, Serif has taken the direction of offering MSIX as default as an installer and MSI as optional which is the right approach for Windows users. Most people will get the MSIX solution and that'll bring the benefits of sandbox installation to those most likely to contact tech support. The MSI option is available to power users who would likely at least get a gist of the problem before contacting support, so it is a more balanced approach.

Edited November 17, 2022 by debraspicher

[rvst]

14 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

What, please, does Serif's decision to use MSIX installers lock you in to.

As a Macintosh user Walt, I think you probably don't appreciate the extent to which the App architecture is a poor fit to a desktop environment. It's just Microsoft being bloody minded trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. 

MSIX installers are part of the App architecture. This is a tile-based interface designed principally for tablets - big ass tiles on a touch screen. It maps very poorly onto a multi-monitor desktop setup. Microsoft has attempted to force this metaphor onto users, but it has been roundly rejected by the market. I don't know any user who prefers it (in fact, everyone disables it) or any professional software firm that develops for it. 

Because of the sandboxing, launching the application is done differently. Because of the sandboxing, integrations are very difficult. It is designed to isolate software packages from each other, not facilitate integration. It gives the user no control of where the software is installed. That's fine for a tablet but not fine for a desktop with multiple drives in it. 

So the choice of a MSIX installer locks the user into a very restricted environment and usage metaphor ill-adapted to a desktop workflow. 

If we wanted to work on a tablet, we'd buy an iPad version of the software.

 

[debraspicher]

5 hours ago, thomasp said:

Going one step further, I find the general trajectory of Windows very unpleasant. MSIX just seems to tie nicely into that.

Hand-holding, second-guessing and even overriding the user's decisions at every turn seems par for the course. For someone who got started with NT4 and W2000 style operating systems it's so much work to fight this thing from a fresh install, every iteration of it seems more obnoxious and deliberately designed to annoy. Suffice to say I dread upgrading these days.

Time for more applications to move to Linux so we can leave this abomination of an OS behind. 😇

Windows design has always tended to be arrogant. At least with Apple, it's arrogant but for very good reason and 99% of the time it's at least designed with user experience in mind. I'm pretty sure if Windows started to go closed door policies, it'll just be to the benefit of a competitor. I'd go Linux if the needle swung too far that direction because MS is just terrible at deploying heavy handed structure as far as user experience is concerned. Their track record is abysmal.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, rvst said:

So the choice of a MSIX installer locks the user into a very restricted environment and usage metaphor ill-adapted to a desktop workflow. 

I have no troubles like that with the Affinity 2 apps on my Windows 11 desktop or Windows 10 laptop machines. The apps operate for me just as they did when they were installed the old way.

[rvst]

6 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

I have no troubles like that with the Affinity 2 apps on my Windows 11 desktop or Windows 10 laptop machines. The apps operate for me just as they did when they were installed the old way.

Sure, the application UI itself operates in the same way when you're using the app regardless of installation method. 

It doesn't launch or integrate with the OS and other applications in the same way at all, however. This is the cause of all the complaints.

You asked what the lock-in was and I answered: it's a lock-in to a restricted operating environment and usage metaphor that doesn't suit the majority of Windows desktop users.