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

231–240 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#231

Post by akerl_ »

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…

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my:

1. Laptop

2. Phone

3. Car

4. Washing machine

5. Handheld GPS

6. E-reader

7. TV

Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to install whatever I want? Because that feels like what's happened with cell phones: manufacturers started building them with more capable and powerful components to drive the features they wanted to include, and because those components overlapped what we'd seen in desktop computers, we've decided that we have an intrinsic right to treat them like we historically treated those computers.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#232

Post by cyanydeez »

gdulli wrote: post #218
fyrn_ wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Also if the majority of sideloaders go away because it's become more difficult, what will happen to the development scene? Will it stall out from lack of developer interest because there's such a small audience compared to before? (Despite it still being possible.)

I see googles actions as lashing out at everyone because theyre being attacked for their monopoly activities.

They want to punish customers for electing regulators who care about consumer protections.

This is large scale abusive boyfriend behavior, doubling down.

Anyone who defends google/Android has been heeled in fear.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#233

Post by koolala »

akerl_ wrote: post #231
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…

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

Video game consoles?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#234

Post by eminence32 »

marcprux wrote: post #203
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…

adb is a developer tool. You need a tethered and trusted computer to be able to transfer an app using adb, and you need to enable "developer mode" on the device, which is an arcane dance that involves navigation through an obscure tree of settings and then quickly tapping a mystery spot 5+ times. Google can't block adb, because that is how Android apps are developed and tested, just how Apple cannot block their devel…

> just how Apple cannot block their developer tools from being able to transfer apps onto an iPhone.

If I recall correctly (I might be wrong, because this was 10+ years ago), but Apple did exactly this when the iPhone was first released. When the iPhone first came out, Apple released its XCode devtools for free, including an iOS emulator that you could use to test your iPhone app. But you had to pay a $99 USD per year "developer program" free in order to use the devtools to test the app on your physical device.

If Google is also blocking preventing you from loading your own software onto your own phone with adb unless you pay a free, then this would be a very important thing to call out explicitly.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#235

Post by ugh123 »

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…

Perhaps the author is speaking purely from a "consumer" point of view, rather than developer/pro types who of course can bypass restrictions using common dev tools.

I believe f-droid strives to be a simple platform of from-source builds for non-Googled apps that anyone can use.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#236

Post by glenstein »

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.

Android already does this. It's the thing that's going away.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#237

Post by squeaky-clean »

gruez wrote: post #106
lucideer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you corroborate this? I don't think this is so much a question of sources & corroboration as it is of language. Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice. The prefix "side-" may be used in some software contexts to describe normal, non-deviant software, but only in cases where the software in question is considered auxiliary. In general, anything described as…

>Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice. Because it is non-standard. Like it or not, the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store, and for most people that's exactly what they do. This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. Accepting it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want. The language of "sideload…

Do you sideload packages on a Linux computer? Do you sideload a game you purchased on GOG?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#238

Post by kragen »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #194
kragen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither of those is a name for the kind of installing that Google is trying to prevent.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#239

Post by [deleted] »

AppleAtCha wrote: post #141
metalman wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

put a fork in it, it's done,almost! android that is. linux phones are comming up fast, and will be set up to run the droid apps we like. but big props to fdroid just used "etchdroid" to transfer a linux iso to a thumb drive and boot a new desk top, and if I get a few bucks ahead I will buy a dev board from these guys https://liberux.net/ flinuxoid?, flinux?

Google really knew what they were doing by hiring Marc Levoy. The Google camera is the only thing keeping me from getting something other than a pixel phone.

[deleted]

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#240

Post by aussieguy1234 »

akerl_ wrote: post #231
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…

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

I'd like to be able to install my own software on all of these
Post reply on HN