SOLVED

Stable version of Edge insider browser

This thread has been locked for new comments by a moderator, if you have a new similar issue then please start a new thread.
MVP

Looks like another Stable version of the new Edge browser resurfaced on Microsoft Servers.

 

this is Not a coincidence, bug nor a mistake, it's intentional. I just don't know why not put it on the front page. 

 

Anyway, this so called stable version can't be uninstalled.

it neither lists it in Control Panel’s Programs and Features nor allows to uninstall from Apps & Features in the Settings App.

 

uninstall-button-grayed-out-for-Chromium-Microsoft-Edge-Windows-10

 

 

 

 

 

Previously when we installed Edge stable version we were able to uninstall it like any application by visiting Programs and Features in Control Panel or by visiting Settings > Apps & Features, where for Microsoft Edge, Settings app displays Modify and Uninstall options, this is not the case in Windows 10 version 1903 running build 18362.418.

 

The Hunter mode button of Revo Uninstaller also fails to find and display Microsoft Edge for advanced uninstall. at the moment the only solution seems possible is using the system restore.

 

 

 

35 Replies

@HotCakeX  "Public means it is accessible by 7 billions people on this planet. [T]hat sounds meaningful enough to me."

 

We are using the term "public" in two different senses.   

 

The best way to think about the "Stable" deployment (both this deployment and the one we discussed 6-8 weeks ago), perhaps, is to think in terms of a "pre-production environment", that is, deployment on the actual server from which the release version will, in time, be released, but deployed in a way that the version is not accessible to the public.   That does not mean that a hacker cannot, through luck and diligence, find the build and "leak" the URL (common enough), but it does mean that the build is not "public" in the sense that Microsoft wants outsiders testing or using the build.

 

In this case (as was the case with the earlier "Stable" version) a person needs to know the exact URL to get to the build.  Microsoft has not provided a path to the "Stable" version through the Edge Insider site or the Office365 site, and coding of the URL removes the site from web search engines.  That tells me, anyway, that Microsoft did not intend for this version to be tested or used by the public, but instead intended the version to be "deployment tested" internally from a production server that will, in time, be used for deployment.

 

The practice of pre-production testing is standard in the industry, or at least that was the case when I was working in an enterprise IT environment.  (I have to remind myself that I have been retired more years than many IT folk in their 20's and 30's have been working, so the concept of pre-production testing may have gone the way of the dinosaurs for all I know.)  But unless things have changed in that regard since my working days, pre-production deployment testing is probably still a requirement for deployment.  If it isn't, it should be, particularly in a case like this, where installation is complicated and appears to involve changes to the Windows 10 environment.

 

Do you mind telling us where you got the URL?  It is just idle curiosity on my part, so if you don't want to, no harm, no foul.

 

I think that we've reached the end point of usefulness in this discussion.

@tomscharbach 

Spoiler

@tomscharbach wrote:

@HotCakeX  "Public means it is accessible by 7 billions people on this planet. [T]hat sounds meaningful enough to me."

 

We are using the term "public" in two different senses.   

 

The best way to think about the "Stable" deployment (both this deployment and the one we discussed 6-8 weeks ago), perhaps, is to think in terms of a "pre-production environment", that is, deployment on the actual server from which the release version will, in time, be released, but deployed in a way that the version is not accessible to the public.   That does not mean that a hacker cannot, through luck and diligence, find the build and "leak" the URL (common enough), but it does mean that the build is not "public" in the sense that Microsoft wants outsiders testing or using the build.

 

In this case (as was the case with the earlier "Stable" version) a person needs to know the exact URL to get to the build.  Microsoft has not provided a path to the "Stable" version through the Edge Insider site or the Office365 site, and coding of the URL removes the site from web search engines.  That tells me, anyway, that Microsoft did not intend for this version to be tested or used by the public, but instead intended the version to be "deployment tested" internally from a production server that will, in time, be used for deployment.

 

The practice of pre-production testing is standard in the industry, or at least that was the case when I was working in an enterprise IT environment.  (I have to remind myself that I have been retired more years than many IT folk in their 20's and 30's have been working, so the concept of pre-production testing may have gone the way of the dinosaurs for all I know.)  But unless things have changed in that regard since my working days, pre-production deployment testing is probably still a requirement for deployment.  If it isn't, it should be, particularly in a case like this, where installation is complicated and appears to involve changes to the Windows 10 environment.

 

Do you mind telling us where you got the URL?  It is just idle curiosity on my part, so if you don't want to, no harm, no foul.

 

I think that we've reached the end point of usefulness in this discussion.


 

 

I think you need to read a lot about how files work on servers and how securing them is done.

Microsoft Creates servers and data centers, I think they know pretty well how to secure a simple file and how to restrict it to their employees only.

I already know they haven't published the link on their websites, I said that in my first post. but it is Not necessary anyway. it's not hard to find what's publicly available on a server.

there are certain, and very basic to be honest, rules and protocols that define how securing a file on a server must be done, properly.

the file (stable Edge browser) on their server is Not secure, Not private and it IS public. period

unless you get an "Access Denied" error then it is public.

there are links to all kinds of operation systems and software on Microsoft servers that are otherwise hidden by website UIs, forms and such :)

but none of them are unintentionally or by mistake put there, just like the stable version of Edge is Not unintentionally or by mistake put there for Public to be able to download.

 

 

@HotCakeX "...  just like the stable version of Edge is Not unintentionally or by mistake put there for Public to be able to download ..."

 

I take it that you think that Microsoft intends that members of the public-at-large download and install the so-called "Stable" version.  For what purpose? 

Spoiler

@tomscharbach wrote:

@HotCakeX "...  just like the stable version of Edge is Not unintentionally or by mistake put there for Public to be able to download ..."

 

I take it that you think that Microsoft intends that members of the public-at-large download and install the so-called "Stable" version.  For what purpose? 


@tomscharbach 

 

If i knew that I wouldn't make this post to ask Them that.

and yes the public can and is downloading it even right now. it's been in lots of tech news sites and Microsoft knows this too and haven't taken down any of the links.

@HotCakeX " [I]t's been in lots of tech news sites and Microsoft knows this too and haven't taken down any of the links."

 

Hold on and it will probably go down.  That's what happened with the last so-called "Stable" version.  This has got "ooops" written all over it.

I don't think so, the last link is still working ;)

@HotCakeX "I don't think so, the last link is still working ;)"

 

Are you sure?   As I remember, the link to the former so-called "Stable" version was deactivated shortly after you published the URL on this Forum, and (as you point out above) the URL seems to have "resurfaced" (as you put it) to permit download of the newer so-called "Stable" version.

 

Whether I remember right, or not, about whether the link URL was deactivated earlier, the "new" link is identical to the "old" link that you published on ‎08-25-2019 05:01 AM in a thread discussing the earlier so-called "Stable" version.

 

I clicked on both a few minutes ago (the link in this post and the link in the 08-25-2019 thread), and both download the same file, the current so-called "Stable" release.

 

I think you were correct earlier in the thread when you characterized the situation as "resurfaced". Or perhaps "reactivated" when referring to the link itself.

Yes i'm sure,
when I said resurfaced I meant the link is resurfaced on the web again

@HotCakeX   A quiet note:  The following material (text and graphic) appears to be directly reproduced from parts of the article "You can’t uninstall Chromium-based Microsoft Edge Stable from Windows 10", dated October 12, 2019, appearing on the Techdows website.

 

HotCakeX-Techdows.jpg

 

The materials are copyrighted by Techdows ("©2008-2019 TechDows. The content is copyrighted to Venkat and may not be reproduced on other websites."). I assume that the lack of attribution in your original post was an oversight.  Although the reproduction might fall under Fair Use doctrines, you may want to edit the original post to properly attribute the text and graphics to avoid a possible  copyright violation.  

@tomscharbach 

First of all that's Microsoft's Copyright, those are pictures from Microsoft Windows. no one can claim Copyright for them.

Second, the text is not copyrighted, it's trivial ordinary text shared and distributed on different forums and websites and I could argue that I wrote them myself. 

 

@tomscharbach 

 

By the way, something else for you to learn:

 

Copyrightable authorship is original expression contributed by an author that contains at least a minimum amount of creativity. ... An individual work that appears on a website can be registered if it constitutes copyrightable subject matter and contains a sufficient amount of original authorship.

Nothing about that text is original, unique or creative.

 

 

@HotCakeX "First of all that's Microsoft's Copyright, those are pictures from Microsoft Windows. no one can claim Copyright for them.  Second, the text is not copyrighted, it's trivial ordinary text shared and distributed on different forums and websites and I could argue that I wrote them myself. By the way, something else for you to learn: Copyrightable authorship is original expression contributed by an author that contains at least a minimum amount of creativity. ... An individual work that appears on a website can be registered if it constitutes copyrightable subject matter and contains a sufficient amount of original authorship. Nothing about that text is original, unique or creative."

 

Whatever the merits of your interpretation of copyright law as applicable to reproducing materials from newspaper, magazine and online media articles without attribution, you might want to review the "Microsoft Community Code of Conduct", specifically this provision: "Cite the source of anything you post or upload, if it isn't your own original content. Be honest about your sources."

 

I don't have anything further to say on the subject. If you think that my comments are inappropriate, please feel free to report them to the moderators.

@tomscharbach 

 

Spoiler

@tomscharbach wrote:

@HotCakeX "First of all that's Microsoft's Copyright, those are pictures from Microsoft Windows. no one can claim Copyright for them.  Second, the text is not copyrighted, it's trivial ordinary text shared and distributed on different forums and websites and I could argue that I wrote them myself. By the way, something else for you to learn: Copyrightable authorship is original expression contributed by an author that contains at least a minimum amount of creativity. ... An individual work that appears on a website can be registered if it constitutes copyrightable subject matter and contains a sufficient amount of original authorship. Nothing about that text is original, unique or creative."

 

Whatever the merits of your interpretation of copyright law as applicable to reproducing materials from newspaper, magazine and online media articles without attribution, you might want to review the "Microsoft Community Code of Conduct", specifically this provision: "Cite the source of anything you post or upload, if it isn't your own original content. Be honest about your sources."

 

I don't have anything further to say on the subject. If you think that my comments are inappropriate, please feel free to report them to the moderators.


 

It was my post and what I experience and the pictures are from Microsoft Windows, no copyright infringement or anything happened (nothing was even copyrightable) , but accusing and blaming other members is against code of conduct and I have reported it.

 

@HotCakeX "It was my post and what I experience and the pictures are from Microsoft Windows, no copyright infringement or anything happened (nothing was even copyrightable) , but accusing and blaming other members is against code of conduct and I have reported it."

 

In for a dime, in for a dollar, I guess. 

 

To help Microsoft access my comments, the following is a roadmap underlying my observation that "A quiet note:  The following material (text and graphic) appears to be directly reproduced from parts of the article "You can’t uninstall Chromium-based Microsoft Edge Stable from Windows 10", dated October 12, 2019, appearing on the Techdows website."

 

Taking your post as a whole:

 

(1)  The following constitutes original content:

 

HotcakeX-1-Original Content.jpg

 

(2-A)  The following content appears to have been reproduced from the Technows article without attribution:

 

 HotcakeX-2-Reproduced-Content.jpg

 

(2-B)  This is the content as it appears in the Technows article:

 

HotcakeX-2-Technows-Content.jpg

 

(3-A)  The following content appears to have been reproduced from the Technows article without attribution:

 

HotcakeX-3-Reproduced-Content.jpg

 

(3-B)  This is the content as it appears in the Technows article:

 

HotcakeX-3-Technows-Content.jpg

 

(4-A)  The following content appears to have been reproduced from the Technows article without attribution:

 

HotcakeX-4-Reproduced-Content.jpg

(4-B)  This is the content as it appears in the Technows article:

 

HotcakeX-4-Technows-Content.jpg

I also stand by my observation that reproduction of this material without attribution is "a possible  copyright violation".  When I posted my comment, I noted that "I assume that the lack of attribution in your original post was an oversight."  I expected, frankly, that you would quickly correct the situation by attributing the reproduced materials to Technows.  I did not expect your response, which I find baffling.  I leave it to Microsoft to sort out (a) whether there is a "a possible  copyright violation", (b) whether either or both of us has violated the "Microsoft Community Code of Conduct", and (c) take appropriate action.

 

@tomscharbach 

Spoiler

@tomscharbach wrote:

@HotCakeX "It was my post and what I experience and the pictures are from Microsoft Windows, no copyright infringement or anything happened (nothing was even copyrightable) , but accusing and blaming other members is against code of conduct and I have reported it."

 

In for a dime, in for a dollar, I guess. 

 

To help Microsoft access my comments, the following is a roadmap underlying my observation that "A quiet note:  The following material (text and graphic) appears to be directly reproduced from parts of the article "You can’t uninstall Chromium-based Microsoft Edge Stable from Windows 10", dated October 12, 2019, appearing on the Techdows website."

 

Taking your post as a whole:

 

(1)  The following constitutes original content:

 

HotcakeX-1-Original Content.jpg

 

(2-A)  The following content appears to have been reproduced from the Technows article without attribution:

 

 HotcakeX-2-Reproduced-Content.jpg

 

(2-B)  This is the content as it appears in the Technows article:

 

HotcakeX-2-Technows-Content.jpg

 

(3-A)  The following content appears to have been reproduced from the Technows article without attribution:

 

HotcakeX-3-Reproduced-Content.jpg

 

(3-B)  This is the content as it appears in the Technows article:

 

HotcakeX-3-Technows-Content.jpg

 

(4-A)  The following content appears to have been reproduced from the Technows article without attribution:

 

HotcakeX-4-Reproduced-Content.jpg

(4-B)  This is the content as it appears in the Technows article:

 

HotcakeX-4-Technows-Content.jpg

I also stand by my observation that reproduction of this material without attribution is "a possible  copyright violation".  When I posted my comment, I noted that "I assume that the lack of attribution in your original post was an oversight."  I expected, frankly, that you would quickly correct the situation by attributing the reproduced materials to Technows.  I did not expect your response, which I find baffling.  I leave it to Microsoft to sort out (a) whether there is a "a possible  copyright violation", (b) whether either or both of us has violated the "Microsoft Community Code of Conduct", and (c) take appropriate action.

 


 

Okay now this is beyond a constructive feedback (which was noted) and it's become Harassment and annoying.
you mentioned your feedback and now you keep Accusing and Harassing me repetitively.

at first when I opened this topic you denied it and talked against it,
then when you lost that argument, you changed subject to copyright and threatened me with legal actions that I am violating copyright law.
again after losing that argument and after I proved that material is Microsoft's Copyrighted and the text is not copyrightable, you changed subject Again and accused me of violating the Code of Conduct.

 

this is clearly a Personal Attack. you are obviously looking for a way to hurt and harm me. at first none of these were a problem for you but after losing each argument, you changed the subject and started abusing me with a different off topic subject. this is Nothing but Abuse and I don't stand it, I've reported all of this.

 

best response confirmed by HotCakeX (MVP)
Solution
Thanks for the discussion. We feel this has come to a natural conclusion, so we are closing this off to new comments - it's good to be aware of using content from other sites, but we do understand this was used to help make an argument rather than passing it off as your own content. But it doesn't seem like anything productive will come from further discussion here.