zlacker

I'm not really interested in that dead-end avenue. Bulk usage is all browser based, most basic applications that do have a desktop-based client are essentially packaged chrome browsers, and high-performance apps are so custom and so tied to old APIs that they wouldn't work with any of the new container methods Microsoft attempted over the years.

Windows workloads are getting smaller, not bigger.

This attempt at a yet another microsft iteration of things like flatpak/docker/dpkg/rpm/nix etc is no more likely to be embraced than the previous ones. There is a reason default packaging of popular software is still SFX packages spewing files all over the place and not MSI or MSIX. The former is usually only included als an alternative (i.e. Chrome's "Enterprise" version) because tools like SCCM are not very useful without it.

>>onepla+(OP)
Have fun with The Year of Desktop Linux, or maybe one of the BSDs.

>>pjmlp+vl1
I'm surprised after 14 replies you are still completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with 'windows bad' or 'app sandboxing bad' or 'haha desktop' some nonsense like that. (which is what you seem to be interpreting every time)

This has to do with Microsoft trying to re-invent the wheel time after time, and consistently failing (within their own ecosystem) because they build things that contradict the desired user experience which prevents adoption. And with adoption, I mean the same kind of adoption that Docker (now OCI) has.

That is not a direct link between desktop-app sandboxing vs. microservice containers, but a comparison between doing things good enough for mass usage (Docker) vs. trying to do it 'the enterprise way' (every attempt beyond win32 so far, including COM, MSI and APPX). And it's not about their technology having bugs either (every tech does, not just MS-tech), plenty of the technical aspects are fine, but that alone is not going to drive adoption as the last few decades have shown.