Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#191

Post by blueg3 »

terminalshort wrote: post #42

I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices Gi…

> Given that both of these things are obviously true, it seems like a pretty obvious solution is to just have a pop up that has a install at your own risk warning whenever you install something outside of the official app store.

It is an obvious solution, and it's a good first solution. This popup already exists.

A problem in security engineering is that when people are motivated (which is easy to achieve), they will just click through warnings. That is why, for example, browsers are increasingly aggressive about SSL warnings and why modifying some of the Mac security controls make you jump through so many hoops.

The usual take on HN is take the attitude that the developer is absolved of responsibility since they provided a warning to the user. That's not helpful. Users are inundated with stupid warnings and aren't really equipped to deal with a technical message that's in between them and their current desire. They want to click the monkey or install the browser toolbar. The attitude that it's not my problem because I provided a warning they didn't understand doesn't restore the money that was stolen from them by malware.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#193

Post by kgwxd »

fyrn_ wrote: post #182
dataflow wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, question. While I'm also miffed about Google's decision and see your point about the term sideloading, there is another elephant in the room you seem to not be addressing here. You write: > “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false_ But isn't Google saying that you will still be able to sideload via ADB ? Which would mean their statement is true, and that your claim that Google's statement is…

Forcing ADB may as well be a ban, if you don't see that, you're pretty out of touch with consumers. Sideloading is already hard enough for many, forcing the use of an extra computer, a dev tool in the CLI, and dev mode is way way outside what people will do

The number of people that don't even own a general purpose computer is huge. And for those that do, ADB is a ridiculous thing to get setup for a particular device. I get paid to work on android software, and I don't even want to put up with the hassle.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#194

Post by catlifeonmars »

kragen wrote: post #137
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is funny because you have defined these words to be as such You have defined installing to be specifically from play store and sideloading as everything except it. Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just sideloading works in this sentence because of what you have already defined but you are using this sentence in defense of that.... As OP stated, installing can mean on debian as an example, insta…

No, that is not the definition I was using. "Sideloading" is a subset of installing, not disjoint from it. If Google were to prevent installing, it would prevent sideloading, but it would also prevent installing from the Play Store, which clearly they don't want. It's a very dangerous precedent, but one that's difficult to discuss without having a name for the kind of installing that Google is trying to prevent.

“Install from play store” vs the unspecific “install”, obviously.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#195

Post by tavavex »

BrenBarn wrote: post #16

I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.

People always say things like these, and I wish it were that way too. Maybe if history had gone a little differently.

But what's the point of defining these standards now? Is the world where this is the reality still feasible? It seems nearly impossible, unless you're an extremely wealthy and influential individual. What I'm seeing is that we never will move to a world where a device that you bought is truly "yours" anymore. Instead, we'll be renting one of the approved devices, ran by one of the tech megacorporations and overseen by your government. They will give no real way to execute any random code that you want, unless you're also licensed and vetted as a developer. They will be tightly surveilled, all information will be saved, every interaction between these devices will be controlled for the sake of security. It will be an entire web of trust, defined by the powers that be. We're seeing early attempts at it now, but we still haven't hit full centralization. But once we do, what happens then?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#196

Post by koolala »

dataflow wrote: post #166
marcprux wrote: post #27

Author here. I admit I am rather startled by the tone of many comments here and the accusations of disingenuity. Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish. You don't "sideload" software on your Linux, Windows, or macOS computer: you install it. You have the right to install whatever you…

Hey, question. While I'm also miffed about Google's decision and see your point about the term sideloading, there is another elephant in the room you seem to not be addressing here. You write: > “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false_ But isn't Google saying that you will still be able to sideload via ADB ? Which would mean their statement is true, and that your claim that Google's statement is…

Can you provide supporting evidence? A place where they say Sideloading is now becoming ADB installing?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#197

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

kragen wrote: post #137
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is funny because you have defined these words to be as such You have defined installing to be specifically from play store and sideloading as everything except it. Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just sideloading works in this sentence because of what you have already defined but you are using this sentence in defense of that.... As OP stated, installing can mean on debian as an example, insta…

No, that is not the definition I was using. "Sideloading" is a subset of installing, not disjoint from it. If Google were to prevent installing, it would prevent sideloading, but it would also prevent installing from the Play Store, which clearly they don't want. It's a very dangerous precedent, but one that's difficult to discuss without having a name for the kind of installing that Google is trying to prevent.

I feel like although sideloading could be correct term maybe but at the same time as the author stated, people might refer something shady to something which is a genuinely normal part, maybe even more safer when you download from f-droid compared to play-store

I feel like you are having this discussion in good faith which is really nice but I just feel like saying that google is oppressing other open source appstores or just using the word installing and later clarifying can make the people feel about how dangerous it really is.

Let me be really clear. If Google can prevent sideloading and the only feasable way for 99% users is their play store which uses their policy terms which can be ever changing, chances are, that they can also prevent people from downloading your app, and can remove your app etc. as well so they can very definitely prevent installing in general as well

The only escape hatch is maybe adb but please, for the 99% of use cases, I doubt how many people would operate a computer open up the terminal and try to use adb or other scenarios, but in all ways, I think that speaking of it as an installing itself isn't so bad after all.

If Google can genuinely go ahead and do this, it would definitely prevent installation of certain app in and in of itself because play store is also controlled by google and they can also remove/prevent apps installs from there too.

I would still recommend to you / the community to say it as an installation as earlier I was also used to saying sideloading but it was only while writing this comment when I realized of how google can actually prevent installation from play store as well since they own it, its an effective lock/restriction in installation itself for all purposes.

Have a nice day.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#198

Post by tcfhgj »

pr337h4m wrote: post #70

Why are OEMs like Samsung just letting this happen? A lot of power users who buy flagships will leave for iPhones if Android ceases to be an open platform. (This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over.)

why would I leave for IPhones? I want the other direction of freedom.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#199

Post by ptx »

gruez wrote: post #144
ptx wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The word itself hardly has any negative connotations aside from something like "not primary", which might be argued as negative, but is nonetheless correct. Android has an APK installer built in. Opening an APK file launches the installer and installs the application, just like opening an MSI file on Windows launches built-in Microsoft Installer and installs the application. Google have gradually added impediments…

>but calling the system's built-in application installation mechanism "not primary" is absurd. So you're arguing that because play store installs and random .apk installs both goes through packageinstaller, the concept of a "primary" install method doesn't exist?

If we're using "primary" to mean "first-party" (as in your original comment), then the system's built-in package installer is the most first-party of all, so it's definitely not "not primary".

If we're using "primary" to mean something like "most popular", then I don't see how the term "sideloading" would make any sense to describe "not primary". Are we side-commenting here, and side-submitting HTTP requests, because we're not posting to Facebook, the primary website?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#200

Post by xondono »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #175
xondono wrote: post #83

I’m honestly very tired of this argument, everything about it is bad. Features aren’t rights, if you want a phone that let’s you run whatever you want, buy one or make it yourself. What you’re trying is to use the force of the state to make mandatory a feature that not only 99% users won’t use, it vastly increases the attack surface for most of them, specially the most vulnerable. If anyone were trying to create a wo…

> You don’t get to decide how others people’s devices work. Perfectly reasonable. It's important that people can decide how their devices work for themselves. No one else should decide for them. But I'm genuinely curious how you see this principle working in practice when there's effectively a duopoly. What's the path for someone who wants to still have any choices for their device? I'm not seeing an obvious answer,…

There isn’t a duopoly, it’s just that the two top contenders are way ahead of the rest, so wanting that niche feature requires a big sacrifices.

Nowadays it’s not even that hard to build your own phone, but it’s not going to be a slick smartphone for sure

Post reply on HN