Microsoft Recall is now an explorer.exe dependency
TLDR:
Windows 11 v24H2 and beyond will have Recall installed on every system. Attempting to remove Recall will now break some file explorer features such as tabs.
YT Video (5min)
You're viewing a single thread.
What happens if you copy explorer.exe from a prior release of Windows and replace the recall-infested version?
At that point why bother? Either accept it and move on, or axe the partition and start browsing forums full of furry pfp gentleanimals advising you on how to fix your latest issue with your new linux installation.
I know you're mixing in joking with your response, but can I point out the irony that a Linux advocate is telling me essentially "don't try to hack a solution, just give it up entirely and adopt a completely different product". That is the opposite of the Linux mindset I'm familiar with.
It's because Linux isn't actually trying to work against you, even if it may feel that way to a noobie at first. Guaranteed this requirement exists to make Recall impossible to uninstall, and for no other reason.
The question isn't "why take the time to hack windows" it's "why keep supporting a company that requires you to undo so much of the product just to maintain control and privacy with your own hardware, and which actively seeks to sabotage attempts to do so."
It’s because Linux isn’t actually trying to work against you, even if it may feel that way to a noobie at first.
Your statement suggest that if Windows is "trying to work against you" then Linux is "trying to work for you". I don't believe that is the case either. Linux works for itself, and if what you want can be done with Linux, great! If you have the skills to alter Linux to do what you want, also great! If you have neither of those, then you'll be left without a specific solution. Linux is great, but trying to pitch it as purely altruistic and supportive isn't accurate and could lead those trying it to abandon it early because their own experience doesn't meet this implicit expectation.
The question isn’t “why take the time to hack windows” it’s “why keep supporting a company that requires you to undo so much of the product just to maintain control and privacy with your own hardware, and which actively seeks to sabotage attempts to do so.”
You don't escape that problem entirely in Linux, it just takes different forms. Proprietary vendor Linux hardware drivers would be a perfect example.
So why hack Windows to make it do what you want? Because that was one of the basic tenets underlying Linux. There is no perfect operating system, just different tradeoffs. If one OS meets most of your needs for a specific task, and you have a way to hack it to fix the rest, thats the better solution rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. Departing from this idea moves the definition of computing from a tool to a religion/social movement. That's fine for some, but not my calling.
Your statement suggest that if Windows is “trying to work against you” then Linux is “trying to work for you”.
That's literally not what I said, nor what I implied. If you want to interpret it that way it's your choice, but I'm not going to defend a statement I didn't make and didn't try to make.
You don’t escape that problem entirely in Linux, it just takes different forms. Proprietary vendor Linux hardware drivers would be a perfect example.
I feel like you aren't distinguishing between "problem exists" and "problem exists because the makers of my OS want it to exist."
So why hack Windows to make it do what you want?
I literally said this was NOT the question.
I'm not trying to strawman you here, so lets revisit these to make sure we understand what each other is saying.
Your statement suggest that if Windows is “trying to work against you” then Linux is “trying to work for you”.
That’s literally not what I said, nor what I implied. If you want to interpret it that way it’s your choice, but I’m not going to defend a statement I didn’t make and didn’t try to make.
I don't understand why you'd bring up “trying to work against you” if you weren't implying that Linux was the opposite. I suggested you were implying it was the opposite, and you're communicating now that is not what you mean. I don't think you're suggesting that Linux "is trying to work against you". So if its not a positive, and not a negative, you're suggesting what....neutral? As in, "Linux is neither trying to work against you nor is trying to help you". I suppose I can agree with that, but I'm not sure how that supports your argument.
What am I missing you are trying to communicate with your statement?
You don’t escape that problem entirely in Linux, it just takes different forms. Proprietary vendor Linux hardware drivers would be a perfect example.
I feel like you aren’t distinguishing between “problem exists” and “problem exists because the makers of my OS want it to exist.”
You're right, I'm not distinguishing between them because as an end user the reason is irrelevant. I'm left with the same result, with the same choices about how to solve it for myself. I'm not trying to save the world. I'm trying to get my computing done.
So why hack Windows to make it do what you want? I literally said this was NOT the question.
My apologies for the paraprhasing of your position of my position.
Lets look at your exact question:
“why keep supporting a company that requires you to undo so much of the product just to maintain control and privacy with your own hardware, and which actively seeks to sabotage attempts to do so.”
My answer: Because I'm not trying to save the world. I'm trying to get my computing done. If a hack to the existing product can do that faster than changing the world, then the hack is the better choice FOR ME. If its a social/religious movement for you, feel free to spread the "good word". I won't stop you, but I'm not interested in joining your evangelistic endeavor.
Man, if "Microsoft is actively trying to take control of my hardware and prevent me from deciding how it is used" and "Linux has a learning curve and lacks market dominance to get hardware manufacturers to play with them sometimes" seem like equivalent circumstances to you, there is no number of iterations to this back and forth that are going to arrive at any common ground between you and I. I can only say good day to you.
Man, if “Microsoft is actively trying to take control of my hardware and prevent me from deciding how it is used” and “Linux has a learning curve and lacks market dominance to get hardware manufacturers to play with them sometimes” seem like equivalent circumstances to you,
And here I thought we weren't going to Strawman each other.
there is no number of iterations to this back and forth that are going to arrive at any common ground between you and I. I can only say good day to you.
Here, we are in perfect agreement. I'm not looking to be converted to the cause. I may be a friend to it and support it, but I'm not dying on that hill.
Keep fighting the good fight, though.
Guaranteed this requirement exists to make Recall impossible to uninstall, and for no other reason.
Or maybe it's so you can use it in search box in explorer.exe
I'm skeptical that irrevocably tying the two together is the only or best technological solution to wanting it in the search box.
Incompatible DLLs most likely.