I’m not sure that a protection against changing the default browser with third party programs (maybe without the user knowing) via the registry is the evil thing being depicted here.
The way I read this article is that this is a move for compliance with the new digital markets act and I’m not seeing the maliciousness.
Willing to be wrong, I haven’t used Windows regularly for like 20 years.
You kidding? That means First party is now a protected method which will absolutely result in the expected outcome like they have done with every “feature” update blocking work arounds.
I’m not sure that a protection against changing the default browser with third party programs (maybe without the user knowing) via the registry is the evil thing being depicted here.
The way I read this article is that this is a move for compliance with the new digital markets act and I’m not seeing the maliciousness.
Willing to be wrong, I haven’t used Windows regularly for like 20 years.
That’s one take, except even the article notes that’s a weak argument.
You kidding? That means First party is now a protected method which will absolutely result in the expected outcome like they have done with every “feature” update blocking work arounds.
Incomprehensibly stupid, because all they have to do is ask the user to confirm. Forcing through their own default instead of asking is malicious.
You are correct, braindead linux fanboys can only see windows bad though.
I love linux, and use it regularly btw, just not a rabid braindead fanboy.